Bombay High Court
VIVEK MADHUKAR DEKATE AND ANRversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court suspended the sentences and granted bail to the applicants pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Summary
Vivek Madhukar Dekate, a public servant, and his wife were convicted by a Special Judge in Pune for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the IPC, receiving four‑year and three‑year rigorous imprisonment respectively along with fines. Both were on bail during trial, and the wife had been released on bail under CrPC 389(3). They filed an interim application seeking suspension of their sentences and enlargement of bail pending the appeal. The CBI opposed, arguing the evidence was overwhelming and the sentences should be served. The Bombay High Court, noting the relatively short terms and the large case backlog, exercised its discretion to suspend the sentences until the appeal is decided and ordered that the applicants be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a PR bond and surety. The court also directed periodic reporting to the CBI‑ACB.
Issues considered
- Whether the sentences imposed on the applicants should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal
- Whether the applicants should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(e), 13(2)
Subjects
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- appeal
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- public servant
- interim application
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
9-IA-3071-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3071 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2026
Vivek Madhukar Dekate & anr. ..Applicants
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. …Respondents
Mr. Om Latpate, a/w Mr. Jitendra Sawant, for the Appellants/
Applicants.
Mr. Amit Munde, Spl. PP, a/w Mr. Jai Vohra, Mr. Parth Tari,
Mr. Shantanu Nakashe, for Respondent No. 1 – CBI.
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 01st OCTOBER 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
P.C.:
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.03
APPEAL/754/2026
12:24:12 +0530
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Call R & P.
IA/3071/2026
4. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to
enlarge the applicants on bail.
SAINATH, PA 1/4
9-IA-3071-2026.DOC
5. By the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2026,
passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-ACB, Pune in Special
Case No. 19/2021, the Applicant No.1 (A-1), who is a public
servant, and Applicant No.2 (A-2), who is the wife of the
Applicant No.1, have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, respectively. The Applicant No.1 has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine of
Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand) and
Applicant No.2 has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, with
default stipulation.
6. Mr. Latpate, the learned Counsel for the applicants,
submitted that, the applicants were on bail during the pendency
of the trial. The learned Special Judge has released the
Applicant No.2 (A-2) on bail under the provisions of Section
389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants
have a fair chance of success in the appeal and, therefore, the
sentence be suspended and the applicants be enlarged on bail
during the pendency of the appeal.
SAINATH, PA 2/4
9-IA-3071-2026.DOC
7. In opposition to this, Mr. Munde, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 – CBI, strongly opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence. It was submitted that,
the learned Special Judge has correctly appreciated the
evidence and on the basis of overwhelming evidence including
the recovery of sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs)
from the possession of the applicants, rendered the finding of
guilt. Therefore, instead of suspending the sentence, the hearing
of the appeal be expedited.
8. Evidently, the applicants have been sentenced to suffer a
fixed term sentence. The sentence of 3 and 4 years rigorous
imprisonment can be said to be relatively short. Having regard
to the large pendency of the cases in this Court, it may not be
possible to hear and decide the appeal finally, within a
reasonable period.
9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion
and suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
10. Hence, the following order :-
::ORDER::
(i) The Interim Application stands allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the
learned Special Judge CBI-ACB, Pune, in Special
SAINATH, PA 3/4
9-IA-3071-2026.DOC
Case No. 19/2021, arising out of CR No.
RC/PUNE/2019/A/0003, registered with CBI-ACB,
Pune, stands suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal.
(iii) The Applicants – Vivek Madhukar Dekate (A1)
and Lalita w/o Vivek Dekate (A2), be enlarged on bail
on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-,
each and a surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
(iv) The Applicants shall mark their presence at CBI-
ACB on the first Monday of November and May every
year, till the disposal of the appeal.
(v) The Applicants shall attend the proceedings in
this appeal, as and when directed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 4/4
Checking your session…