Bombay High Court

HANUMAN @ HANUMANT LAHU BHOIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 8 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail should be granted and the sentence suspended pending the appeal.

Summary

The appellant, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, has been incarcerated for over 11 years in an open prison and has no prior criminal record. He filed an interim application seeking bail and suspension of his sentence pending a criminal appeal filed in 2021. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's possession of a knife during the crime. The Court, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Saudan Singh (2023) and Sonadhar (2022) which permit bail for persons who have served more than ten years of a sentence and whose appeal is not imminent, found the appellant’s behavior satisfactory and noted his medical need for cataract surgery. Consequently, the Court granted bail, suspended the sentence, and imposed standard conditions including a personal bond, surety, regular police reporting, and payment of the fine.

Issues considered

Whether bail under Section 389 of the CrPC can be granted to a life‑convicted prisoner who has served more than ten years of imprisonment pending a pending appeal.
Whether the appellant’s medical condition and conduct in prison justify bail.
Whether the fine imposed by the trial court must be paid before bail can be granted.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302

Subjects

bail
life imprisonment
IPC 302
CrPC 389
long incarceration
appeal pending
open prison
medical condition
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

IA-2642 - 2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2642 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2021

Hanuman @ Hanumant Lahu .. Applicant/Appellant
Bhoir

V/S.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
-------------------
Mr. Sagar Redkar i/by Sumit S. Vhanbatte, for the applicant/appellant.

Digitally
Mr. Amit Munde, Addl. PP., for the respondent/State.
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
--------------------
2026.09.08
14:31:47
+0530
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER: (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J).

1. Heard Mr. Sagar Redkar, learned counsel for the

applicant/appellant and Mr. Amit Munde, APP, for the State.

2. The Applicant is seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending

the appeal primarily on the ground that he has suffered a long

incarceration for a period of more than 11 years.

3. The Applicant / Appellant has been convicted by a judgment and

order dated 15.1.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane, for the

varsha 1 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a

fine of Rs.2,000, and in default, to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years. The Applicant / Appellant

has challenged the judgment and order of conviction before this Court

by preferring an appeal, being Appeal No. 616 of 2021, which is

pending before this Court.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the

judgments of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC

446 and Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) SC 788.

5. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is that

as the Applicant has been incarcerated for a period of more than 10

years, and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future,

so also there are no extenuating circumstances or any criminal

antecedents, the Applicant may be released on bail. The Learned

Counsel for the Applicant has also invited the attention of this Court to

the medical papers annexed along with the present application and

pointed out that the Applicant is suffering from cataract in both the

eyes, which requires urgent medical attention and even cataract

surgery.

varsha 2 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

6. Per Contra, the Learned APP strongly opposed the release of the

Applicant on bail pending the Appeal and submitted that the Applicant

is involved in an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Learned

APP submitted that the offence was committed in a calculated manner,

as the Applicant was carrying a knife in his pocket and that it was not

an act which took place on the spur of the moment or in a fit of rage. It

was further submitted that the knife blow was dealt on the chest,

which is a vital part of the body, and therefore, the Applicant knew

consequences of his act. The Learned APP also submitted that the

appeal itself could be taken up for hearing and urged that the bail

application be rejected.

7. In Saudan Singh ( supra ), the Apex Court has been pleased to

observe as under :

“7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the

advocate may not be present as has been set out in the report

of the High Court but if they have already completed 14 years

of actual sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate

stand and the learned Judge can himself pass appropriate

orders to at least examine those cases for release and the

absence of the advocate cannot come in the way in such a

scenario.

8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for

varsha 3 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

the High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases

where the person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not

a repeat offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go

bail can be granted and cases remitted for examination under

the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules,

1938. In all these cases, there is a high possibility that if these

people are released, they may not be even interest in

prosecuting their appeals.

9. The second category of cases can be one where the person

has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases

also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any

extenuating circumstances against him.

10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the

aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be

troubled with such matters.”

8. We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by

the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the

Applicant has served more than 10 years of actual imprisonment, the

bail application of the Applicant can be considered.

9. We had asked the Learned APP to call for a report from the jail

authorities to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by

the Applicant. The Learned APP has placed on record the record sheet

of the Applicant submitted by the Superintendent, Kolhapur Open

varsha 4 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

Prison. A perusal of the same, shows that the Applicant has undergone

more than 11 years of actual imprisonment. It also shows that the

behavior of the Applicant was satisfactory and he is in open prison. The

report however, also states that the Applicant has not paid the fine

imposed upon him by the Trial Court.

10. The Applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more than

11 years, his behavior is found to be satisfactory and he is in an open

prison. Further there are no criminal antecedents and the appeal is of

the year 2021 which is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near

future. Taking into consideration the above factors we are inclined to

release the applicant on bail pending the appeal.

11. Apart from the observations made in Saudan Singh supra we are

also guided by the decision of the Apex Court in Sonadhar v. State of

Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been observed “we are of the view

that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal

is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances,

should be enlarged on bail."

12. We also refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in

Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal

Appeal No. 2987 of 2023), where it is observed that “the appellant has

varsha 5 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

undergone incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. In fact,

the High Court ought to have granted relief under Section 389 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the appellant.”

13. Taking into consideration the dictum of the Apex Court, we are

inclined to allow this application. As a consequence, the Applicant is

found to be entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the

appeal.

ORDER

A) The Application is allowed.

B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge,
Thane, in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2016 vide judgment dated 15th
January 2018 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and
the Applicant is released on bail on the following conditions:

i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a
surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with one or more local sureties.

(ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the
Nerul Police Station, District Thane, on the first Monday of
every month for a period of one year initially, and thereafter
once in six months till the disposal of the appeal, preferably
on the first Monday of January and June of every year. In
case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the

varsha 6 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

aforesaid condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to file
an application for cancellation of bail.

(iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential
address and phone number and inform the police if there is
any change in the address or phone number.

(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without informing the Nerul Police Station, District Thane.

(v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any,
with this Court.

(vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to disseize him/her.

(vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout
any of the conditions imposed herein.

(viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the
period of his release.

(ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of
the final hearing of the appeal.

(x) The Applicant shall also pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- as
directed to be paid by the Sessions Court, Thane vide order
dated 15.1.2018.

14. The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed

varsha 7 of 8
IA-2642 - 2026.doc

of. All other pending applications stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

varsha 8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…