Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ALFAZ FIROZ MULLAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The High Court suspended the sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge and ordered the applicant’s release on bail pending appeal.

Summary

Alfaz Firoz Mulla was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2024 for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence pending his appeal, arguing that the trial court’s judgment was contrary to law and evidence. The State contended that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s order was well‑reasoned. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the sentence was short‑term and that the appeal would likely take a considerable time, and therefore found merit in the applicant’s request. The Court allowed the interim application, suspended the sentence, granted bail on a bond of Rs.25,000 with a surety, and directed the applicant to appear before the Sessions Court every three months.

Issues considered

  • Whether the sentence imposed in the trial court should be suspended pending the disposal of the appeal

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • suspension of sentence
  • interim application
  • IPC 307
  • IPC 34
  • bail
  • criminal appeal
  • short-term sentence

Judgment

                                                                                914-IA-306-2026 (CR).doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2026
                                                            IN
                                                CR. APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2026

                                                       Alfaz Firoz Mulla
                                                           VERSUS
                                                   The State of Maharashtra

                                                            ...
                        Mr. Umesh H. Pawar, Advocate for Applicant.
                        Mr. Nitin. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                            ...

                                                          CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                                          DATE       :   8th MAY, 2026
                        P. C. :

                        1.        Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for

                        the State.

                        2.        By this application the applicant is seeking suspension of

                        sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions

                        Judge, Islampur in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2024, dated 23.04.2026

                        for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of

                        the       Indian   Penal   Code   and    sentenced    to   suffer    rigorous

                        imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in

                        default simple imprisonment for three months.
           Digitally
           signed by
           SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR
JAMADAR    Date:
           2026.05.08
           15:40:10
           +0530


                        Sajakali Jamadar                    1 of 3
                                                     914-IA-306-2026 (CR).doc


3.       Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court's

judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence on record. It is

contended that the court erred in convicting the applicant. Hence,

the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4.       It is contention of learned APP that prosecution has proved

the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has

rendered a well reasoned order and no interference is required in it.

Hence, prayed to reject the application.

5.       Having heard both learned counsel and perused the impugned

judgment, I find that certain plausible grounds are raised by the

Applicant and considering that the applicant is awarded a short-

term sentence, coupled with the fact that disposal of the Appeal may

take a considerable period, the sentence deserves to be suspended.

Hence, the order :


                                ORDER


(i)      The Interim Application is allowed.

(ii)     The sentence awarded in judgment and order rendered by the
         the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Sessions
         Case No. 14 of 2024, dated 23.04.2026, is hereby suspended.




Sajakali Jamadar                   2 of 3
                                                     914-IA-306-2026 (CR).doc


(iii) The applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR
         Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand),
         and one solvent surety, in the like amount, before the learned
         Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur.

(iv) Applicant shall mark presence before the concerned Sessions
         Court, once in three months on the date assigned by the
         concerned Court.

(v)      The interim application is disposed of accordingly.



                                        [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]




Sajakali Jamadar                   3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.