Bombay High Court

KARAN JALINDAR BHOLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the appellant acted under sudden provocation, justifying suspension of the sentence and grant of bail pending appeal.

Summary

The sole accused, Rohit Ghuge, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt (Sec. 324 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and bail pending his appeal, contending that he acted under sudden provocation and thus fell within the fourth exception to Sec. 300 IPC, reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The State argued that the killing was pre‑meditated, citing multiple eyewitnesses and medical evidence of a fatal stab wound. The Court examined the evidence, noting that the assault arose from a heated quarrel in which the deceased had allegedly assaulted the appellant’s female relatives, and held that the circumstances indicated sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court found the case suitable for bail and suspended the sentence pending appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is covered by the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, thereby reducing murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Whether the sentence imposed should be suspended pending appeal
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 300, 302, 324

Subjects

murder
culpable homicide
sudden provocation
bail
suspension of sentence
Indian Penal Code
criminal appeal
interim application

Judgment

IA-2575-2026.odt

Rohit Ghuge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2575 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2026
Digitally

ROHIT
signed by
ROHIT
RAMDAS
Mr. Karan Jalindar Bhole …Applicant
RAMDAS GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
2026.10.07
17:52:47
+0530

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Pranav Pokale a/w Mr. Chinmay Sawant and Mr. Aditya Bagal,
Advocates for the Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026.
PC.

1. The Applicant who is the solitary Accused in the proceedings

before the Trial Court has approached this Court seeking suspension of

sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated 17.04.2026

convicting him for offense punishable under Section 302 and Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The Applicant was sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC.

2. Heard, Mr. Pokale, for the Applicant and Ms. Shinde, APP for

Respondent-State, perused the Application and Appeal.

1
IA-2575-2026.odt

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that FIR No. 79 of

2021 came to be lodged on the basis of the complaint of the wife of the

deceased i.e. PW No. 1 – first informant. In her complaint, she stated

that on 05.02.2021, at about 3.30 pm, there erupted a quarrel between

her grandson and the niece of the Applicant, on a trivial issue. Therefore,

the deceased asked his relative, Pratiksha Bhole to bring about

understanding between the children. However, a quarrel took place

between the deceased and Pratiksha. When the deceased and the

Applicant were in front of the Applicant’s house, he approached the

deceased and asked why he was talking to the ladies of the house.

Thereafter, the Applicant assaulted the deceased by means of cable wire

on his backside and threatened to kill the deceased. When PW No.1-

Complainant tried to intervene, the Applicant threatened to kill her

husband and went inside his house, brought out a knife and assaulted the

deceased 2-3 times on his abdomen. PW No.1- Complainant took the

deceased to a hospital where he was given medical treatment for two

days. However on 07.02.2021, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

4. During the course of investigation, spot panchnama was drawn,

post mortem was conducted, injury certificate of the deceased was

obtained. The Applicant was arrested on 05.02.2021. Investigation was

concluded, chargesheet was filed. Case was committed to the Sessions

Court. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His

2
IA-2575-2026.odt

defence was of denial.

5. The principal contention of the Applicant was that even taking the

prosecution case at face value, he is covered by the fourth exception to

Section 300 of the IPC. He submits that the dispute between the two

children of the respective families rapidly escalated into altercation

between the adults involving women folk of the respective houses. The

deceased assaulted one Pratiksha, a relative of the Applicant on her hand

with a stick and also hit Shashikala, another relative of the Applicant on

her head with the stick. Seeing this, the Applicant, a young man,

aggrieved by seeing his relatives being assaulted entered the fray and

accosted the deceased as to why he was assaulting women folk of his

house. This led to a verbal altercation between the deceased and the

Applicant. He further contended that under these circumstances, the

Applicant assaulted the deceased with a wire and in a fit of rage brought

out a knife from the house and stabbed the deceased in his abdomen. The

incident, according to the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has happened in

a spur of the moment under sudden provocation. The Applicant has not

acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Thus, he would be covered by the

Fourth Exception to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby reducing the offence

to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

6. Learned APP Ms. Shinde, countered the aforesaid submissions by

arguing that the death was proved to be homicidal in nature. There are

3
IA-2575-2026.odt

multiple eye-witnesses to the incident. The Applicant has acted with pre-

meditation and the fact that there is a serious injury on the left lower

abdomen, clearly brings the offence within the fold of Section 302 of the

IPC.

7. The prosecution case rests on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses,

who in a chorus state that they have seen the Applicant stab the deceased

with a knife. However, the evidence of PW No. 5, an eye witness has

clearly brought out the series of events which led to this act of the

Applicant. The incident which began as a trivial quarrel between two

children of neighboring families rapidly escalated into an argument

between the deceased and the women folk of the Applicant’s family. The

Applicant, then a young man was provoked since the deceased had

allegedly assaulted his female relatives with a stick in front of him.

Enraged by this, he hit the deceased first with a wire and then taking out

a knife from the house, stabbed him on his abdomen. The deceased was

admitted on 05.02.2021 to Ruby Hall Clinic and on 07.02.2021, he

succumbed to his injuries. Evidence of PW No. 8, the doctor who

examined him on arrival, clearly shows that there was a stab wound on

the left lower abdomen and the intestine had come out on the skin

surface of the deceased. Thus, the medical evidence also demonstrates

that there was only a solitary stab wound dealt with by the Applicant.

The evidence of the eye-witness brings out the circumstances in which

4
IA-2575-2026.odt

the Applicant has assaulted the deceased and the provocation that was

offered to him. Medical evidence, prima facie, suggests that the Applicant

has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the light of these facts, we

find force in the submissions on behalf of the Applicant that, prima facie,

from the record it seems that the Applicant under sudden provocation

has assaulted the deceased.

8. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, we find that this is a fit

case to admit the Applicant to bail and suspend his sentence pending

Appeal. Hence, the following order.

:ORDER:

i) The sentence imposed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated

17.04.2026, in Sessions Case No. 252 of 2026 is

suspended during the pendency of the Appeal.

ii) The Applicant be released on bail on executing PR

bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand

only) with one local surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

iii) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of this Court.

5
IA-2575-2026.odt

iv) The Applicant shall inform the Trial Court of his

contact details and residential address alongwith

changes therein, if any.

v) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court on such of

the dates as directed by it to mark his presence.

vi) Infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions would

entitle the State to move for cancellation of bail.

Interim Application No. 2575 of 2026 is allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…