Bombay High Court
NILESH DINKAR DHOKEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the appellant’s case falls within Section 304 Part II and therefore granted bail with suspension of the sentence.
Summary
The appellant, Nilesh Dinkar Dhoke, was convicted under Sections 302, 427 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail, relying on earlier bail orders granted to his co‑accused, Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke and Prasad Shirish Mule. The Division Benches had held that the facts suggested no intention to murder and that the case could fall under Exception 4 of Section 300, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II. The learned A.P.P. argued that an iron rod recovered from the appellant indicated a greater role, but the Court found the circumstances identical to those of the co‑accused. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of bail to the appellant, suspending the life sentence pending the appeal and imposing standard bail conditions. The application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail and suspension of his life sentence pending appeal, given the conviction under Sections 302 and 427 IPC.
- Whether the facts of the case fall within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, thereby reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 300, 302, 304, 34, 427
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- IPC 302
- IPC 304 Part II
- culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- criminal appeal
- co‑accused parity
- interim application
Judgment
Digitally signed
NISHA by NISHA
SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date: 2026.09.02
17:16:15 +0530
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2921 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026
Nilesh Dinkar Dhoke ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. The appeal preferred by the appellant having been
admitted, the present application is filed seeking suspension of
sentence and release of the applicant on bail. The present applicant,
who was arraigned as accused No.1, has been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 427 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and has been sentenced to suffer
N. S. Chitnis 1/6
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
imprisonment for life, along with fine and a default sentence.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance
upon the orders passed by two Division Benches in applications filed
by the co-accused, namely, Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke and Prasad Shirish
Mule, who have been released on bail, and he seeks parity with the
said applicants.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. The learned A.P.P submits
that the point of distinction as regards the role and the involvement of
the present applicant is there is recovery of one iron rod from him,
which is alleged to be the weapon used in the commission of the
offence.
On 17th April 2026, while deciding the Interim
Application filed by the co-accused, Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke, the Division
Bench considered the facts leading to the prosecution case. It was the
prosecution case that the mobile phone of accused No.1, i.e. the
N. S. Chitnis 2/6
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
present applicant, was found in the possession of the deceased and, to
get that mobile phone back, the accused persons called deceased-Nitin
Jadhav, near Galaxy Hospital. According to the prosecution, they
snatched the mobile phone and assaulted him with fist, kick blows and
iron rod, as a result of which he fell on the road and on being admitted
to the Civil Hospital, while undergoing treatment passed away on 23 rd
April 2023, much after the date of the incident, i.e. 8 th April 2023.
While considering the application of the wife of the
applicant viz. Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke, the Division Bench came to an
opinion that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of
Nitin though they had knowledge that, if assaulted with an iron rod,
he may suffer fatal injuries. Prima facie, expressing the opinion that
the case of the applicant may fall within the purview of Exception 4 of
Section 300 of the IPC and that the applicant has committed an
offence contemplated under Section 304 (Part-II) and not under
Section 302 of the IPC, the applicant- Pallavi Dhoke, i.e. the wife of
the present applicant was released on bail. Another Division Bench to
which one of us (Bharati Dangre, J.) is a member, while considering
N. S. Chitnis 3/6
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
the application of co-accused-Prasad Mule adopted the same analogy
and relied upon the order passed in the case of co-accused- Pallavi
Dhoke
4. The present applicant before us is the husband of co-
accused Pallavi Dhoke. If it is the case of the prosecution that all the
accused persons were present at the time when Nitin Jadhav (deceased)
was assaulted and that, on account of the injuries caused to him, he
succumbed in the hospital, we see no reason why the reasoning
adopted by the two Division Benches should not be extended to the
present applicant. We have also noted that the present applicant was
not on bail during the trial. In the wake of the prima facie opinion
expressed in the order dated 17th April 2026 that the case may fall
within Section 304 (Part II) of IPC, as there was no intention and the
fact that the incident occurred when the deceased had come to return
the mobile phone, coupled with the fact that the death occurred after a
time gap, we deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of the said
orders to the present applicant. Hence, we pass the following order:
N. S. Chitnis 4/6
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
ORDER
(i) During the pendency of Appeal preferred by the Applicant, the
substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant vide
Judgment and Order dated 23rd January, 2026, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case
No.318 of 2023, is suspended and the Applicant be released on
bail on his furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
local solvent sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Before his release from jail, the Applicant shall give his
prospective residential address and the mobile and/or landline
number on which he or his any close relative can be contacted;
(iii) After his release from jail, the Applicant shall mark his
appearance before the trial Court, once in every month,
between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., during the pendency of the
Appeal;
(iv) In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the
aforesaid conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file
N. S. Chitnis 5/6
5-ia.2921.2026..doc
application for cancellation of bail.
5. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 6/6
Checking your session…