Bombay High Court
ZAKIR SIRAJ IRANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court has the authority to suspend the fine and grant bail in the interest of justice.
Summary
Zakir Siraj Irani was convicted under IPC sections 394, 506(2) read with 34 and MCOC Act sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4), receiving five years on each count, two years on the intimidation charge and a total fine of Rs.15,30,000. He has completed the substantive imprisonment but remains incarcerated for ten months in default of fine payment. The applicant filed a second interim application seeking suspension of the fine and bail, arguing that his co‑convict had been released on bail. The State opposed, relying on an earlier refusal to suspend the fine. The High Court held that the appellate court retains the power to suspend the fine under the MCOC Act and, considering the applicant’s circumstances and the precedent, granted bail and suspended the fine pending the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court can suspend the sentence of fine imposed under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 pending appeal.
- Whether the applicant, already serving default imprisonment for non‑payment of fine, is entitled to bail.
- Whether a prior refusal to suspend the fine bars a subsequent application for the same relief.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 394, 506(2)
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of fine
- default imprisonment
- MCOC Act
- concurrent sentences
- criminal appeal
- interim application
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37675
25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2744 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2025
Zakir Siraj Irani ... Applicant/Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Ms. Apeksha Vora, for Applicant.
Smt. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the
applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. In fact, this is a second
application for suspension of sentence. First Application, being IA No.4349 of
2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2025, was dismissed by this Court by an
order dated 24 February 2026.
3. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, on account
of change in circumstances, the Applicant has preferred this Application. It
was submitted that, the co-convict Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj was released
on bail during the pendency of the appeal by this court by an order dated 6
August 2026. As the applicant is similarly circumstanced, the applicant also
SSP 1/5
25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. By a judgment and order dated 9 October 2025, in MCOC Special Case
No.158 of 2021, the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, has convicted the
Applicant (A1) and the co-accused Sonu Ananta Jadhav (A2) for the offences
punishable under Sections 394 and 506(2), read with Section 34, of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of
the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act, 1999”)
and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of five years on each count, for the
offences punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code and Sections 3(1)
(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, and for an offence punishable under
Section 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has
been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years.
5. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, for an offence punishable
under Section 394 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.25,000/-; for an offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the
Penal Code, fine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, fine of Rs.5,00,000/-,
on each count. The aggregate amount of fine comes to Rs.15,30,000/-.
6. The applicant has been in custody since 10 November 2020. As the
learned Special Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently, the Applicant has already undergone the substantive sentence
SSP 2/5
25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc
on each count. However, since the Applicant could not deposit the fine, the
Applicant is undergoing the default sentence.
7. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the
aggregate amount of fine is Rs.15,30,000/- and on account of poor financial
condition, the Applicant could not deposit such huge fine amount, and,
therefore, despite having undergone the entire substantive sentence, the
Applicant is still languishing in prison. The Applicant has already undergone
10 months of sentence in default of payment of fine. Therefore, the Applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. Learned APP countered the submissions on behalf of the Applicant. It
was urged that, as this Court has already declined the prayer to suspend the
sentence of fine, which has been imposed in accordance with the provisions
of MCOC Act, 1999, the instant application also deserves to be rejected.
9. Evidently, the applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence.
In addition, the Applicant has suffered 10 months of imprisonment in default of
payment of fine. In strict sense, the sentence in default of payment of fine is
not in the nature of punishment. It is true, the learned Special Judge has
imposed the minimum fine prescribed under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of
the MCOC Act, 1999. However, the quantum of imprisonment in default of
sentence of fine is a matter which warrants consideration, at the final
adjudication of the appeal.
SSP 3/5
25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc
10. In a situation of the present nature, the Appellate Court is not denuded
of the power to suspend the sentence of fine. A useful reference in the
context can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendera Kumar Mehra V/s. State of
Jharkhand1 and Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Ashok Sirpal2.
11. As the Applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence and 10
months imprisonment in default of payment of fine and the co-convict has
already been enlarged on bail, this Court considers it expedient in the interest
of justice to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Applicant on bail, during
the pendency of the appeal.
12. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Application stands allowed.
(ii) The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Special Judge in
MCOC Special Case No. 158/2021, arising out of CR No. 827/2020 registered
with Dindoshi Police Station, stands suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal.
(iii) The Applicant - Zakir Siraj Irani be enlarged on bail on furnishing a
PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
1 (2018) 15 SCC 139
2 2024 SCC Online SC 3036
SSP 4/5
25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc
(iv) The Applicant shall mark his presence at Dindoshi Police Station,
on the first Monday of March and September every year, till the disposal of
the appeal.
(v) The Applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the fine
in the trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today.
(vi) The Applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal, as and
when directed.
The application stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 5/5
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2026 16:32:25
Checking your session…