Bombay High Court
DHANAJI SHIVAJI JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the appellants pending the final disposal of their appeals.
Summary
The appellants Balaji Suryakant Ekurge, Salman Sherkhan Mulani and Dhanaji Shivaji Jadhav were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 100/2012 for offences under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 each. They filed interim applications (IA/3013/2026, IA/3020/2026 and IA/3021/2026) seeking suspension of the sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing of their appeals. The learned Sessions Judge had previously enlarged them on bail during trial, and the appellants argued they had not misused that liberty. The State opposed the relief, but the High Court noted that the sentence was a fixed term and, given the large pendency of cases, it was unlikely the appeals would be heard soon, warranting suspension of the sentence. Consequently, the Court allowed the interim applications, suspended the sentence until final disposal of the appeals, and granted bail on furnishing a PR bond and surety of Rs.15,000 each, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether a fixed‑term sentence of three years should be suspended pending appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances
- Whether the appellants are entitled to enlargement on bail during the pendency of their criminal appeals
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 392
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- criminal appeal
- IPC 392
- IPC 34
- fixed term imprisonment
- interim application
Judgment
5 APEAL-735-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2026
Balaji Suryakant Ekurge ..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3013 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2026
Salman Sherkhan Mulani ..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3020 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2026
Dhanaji Shivaji Jadhav ..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3021 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed
Mr. Amey Sheth, for Appellants/Applicants in all applications.
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.05
15:15:47 +0530
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for Respondent – State in
SAINATH, PA 1/4
5 APEAL-735-26.DOC
APEAL/735/2026 a/w IA/3013/2026.
Smt. R S Tendulkar, APP for Respondent – State in APEAL/736
& 737/2026 a/w IA/3020/2026 & IA/3021/2026.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 03rd September 2026
P.C.:
APPEAL/735/2026, 736/2026 & 737/2026
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Call R & P.
IA/3013/2026, IA/3020/2026 & IA/3021/2026
4. These applications are filed seeking suspension of
sentence and to enlarge the applicants on bail during the
pendency of the appeals.
5. By a judgment and order dated 04 th August, 2026 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions
Case No. 100/2012, the applicants have been convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a term of three years and pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, with default stipulation.
SAINATH, PA 2/4
5 APEAL-735-26.DOC
6. Mr. Sheth, the learned Counsel for the applicants, submit
that, the learned Sessions Judge has enlarged the applicants on
bail.
7. Mr. Sheth, further submitted that, the applicants have a
good case on merits. The applicants have not abused the liberty
while they were on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
Therefore, the applicants be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the appeals.
8. The learned APP opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence and release of the applicants on bail.
9. Evidently, the applicants have been sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years; which is a fixed
term sentence. Ordinarily, where the convicts are sentenced to
suffer a fixed term sentence, in the absence of exceptional
circumstances, the Appellate Court ought to suspend the
sentence and enlarge the applicants on bail.
10. In the case at hand, having regard to the large pendency of
the cases before this Court, it is extremely unlikely that, the
appeals can be heard in the near future. Therefore, this Court
considers it expedient in the interest of justice to suspend the
sentence and enlarge the applicants on bail.
11. Hence, the following order :-
SAINATH, PA 3/4
5 APEAL-735-26.DOC
::ORDER::
(i) The Interim Applications stand allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions
Case No. 100/2012, arising out of CR No. 156/2011
registered with Paud Police Station, stands suspended
till the final disposal of the appeal.
(iii) The Applicants – Balaji Suryakant Ekurge, Salman
Sherkhan Mulani and Dhanaji Shivaji Jadhav, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- and a surety in the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
(iv) The applicants shall not contact the victim and
any other prosecution witness or give threat or
inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.
(v) The Applicants shall mark their presence at
Paud Police Station, on the first Monday of October
and April every year, till the final disposal of the
appeal.
(vi) The Applicants shall attend the proceedings in
these appeals, as and when directed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 4/4
Checking your session…