Bombay High Court

NITIN ALIAS BAPU RAMESH PATOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The court held that there was no basis to grant suspension of sentence or bail, and therefore dismissed the interim application.

Summary

The applicant, Nitin Alias Bapu Ramesh Patole, filed an interim application seeking suspension of his 20-year sentence and bail pending appeal. His counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, citing contradictory prosecution evidence and lack of supporting medical evidence. The State contended that ample evidence existed, which the trial court had considered in convicting the applicant, and noted that the applicant was already incarcerated for another case (Special Case No. 32 of 2024). Respondent No.2’s counsel asserted that the applicant violated the respondent’s rights and that the trial court’s conviction was properly reasoned. The bench reviewed the trial court’s judgment, found no merit in granting indulgence, and dismissed the interim application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending the appeal
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court should be maintained pending further proceedings

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
interim application
criminal appeal
conviction
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                                            938 - CRI IA - 273 - 2026.docx


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
VAIBHAV
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.10
10:08:14 +0530
                                 CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2026
                                                     IN
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2025

                      Nitin Alias Bapu Ramesh Patole                     … Applicant
                                   V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                    … Respondents

                      Ms. Suvarna Yadav for the Applicant.
                      Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State.
                      Ms. Supriya      Koli   for   Respondent    No.2    (Appointed
                      Advocate).



                                                      CORAM       : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                                      DATED       : SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
                      P.C.:


                      1.      By the present Application, the Applicant has sought suspension

                      of sentence and bail.


                      2.      Ms. Suvarna Yadav, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits

                      that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

                      present crime. She submits that the medical evidence does not support

                      the case of the prosecution. She submits that there are several

                      contradictions in the case of the prosecution. She, therefore, requests

                      for grant of the present Application.


                      3.      Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State, submits that there is




                      VRJ                                                                               1
                                                    938 - CRI IA - 273 - 2026.docx


more than sufficient evidence on record, which has been considered by

the Trial Court while convicting the Applicant and imposing the

sentence. She submits that the Applicant was in jail during the

pendency of Special Case No. 32 of 2024.


4.    Ms. Supriya Koli, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits

that the Applicant has violated the rights of Respondent No. 2. She

submits that Respondent No. 2 has supported the prosecution and that

the Trial Court, by a reasoned order, has convicted the Applicant.


5.    Perused the impugned judgment dated 27th March 2025. The

Trial Court has applied its mind and has meticulously addressed the

evidence led by the prosecution and found Applicant guilty of the

offence. Contention raised by Ms. Suvarna Yadav, learned Advocate for

the Applicant will be considered on merits of the Appeal.


6.    In view of the above, and considering the fact that the Applicant

was in jail during the pendency of Special Case No. 32 of 2024, which

has now culminated in conviction, with the Applicant being sentenced

to 20 years of imprisonment, I do not find any case for indulgence in

this Interim Application.


7.    Interim Application No.273 of 2026 is, therefore, dismissed.




                                           (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)



VRJ                                                                             2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…