Bombay High Court
ANKIT NANUBHAI PATEL AND ANRversusTHE UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court suspended the sentences and granted bail to the applicants on condition of furnishing a personal bond with sureties.
Summary
The applicants, Ankit Nanubhai Patel and Siddharth Dipakbhai Patel, were convicted by the JMFC, Daman under IPC sections 186 r/w 34, 332 r/w 34, 341 r/w 34 and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, receiving short‑term rigorous and simple imprisonments and fines. While they were on bail during trial, they were taken into custody on 31‑08‑2026. They filed an interim application seeking suspension of their sentences and bail pending the hearing of a criminal revision application. The learned High Court observed that the sentences were short, the applicants had not misused bail previously, and the revision would take time; consequently, it ordered suspension of the sentences and granted bail on a Rs 20,000 personal bond with sureties. The interim application was disposed of by granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to bail and suspension of sentence pending the hearing of the revision application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 186, 332, 34, 341
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 3
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- criminal revision
- short term sentence
- IPC
- public property damage
Judgment
501-IA-3387-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3387 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 508 OF 2026
1. Ankit Nanubhai Patel
2. Siddharth Dipakbhai Patel ...Applicants
VERSUS
The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman and Diu and Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.09.24
KILAJE 18:29:24
+0530 Mr. Pawan Mali, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Ashwin Tool a/w. Reeti Upadhyay, Vaarishta Pardiwalla, Srushti
Dhavale, for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this Interim Application, the applicants are seeking
suspension of sentence and bail.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that
applicants have been convicted by J.M.F.C., Daman, under various sections
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). They are convicted under
Section 186 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”)
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each and to
Page 1 of 3
501-IA-3387-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one week each. They are convicted under Section 332 read with
Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. They are sentenced
under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-
each, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one week
each. For the offence punishable under Section 3 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 the applicants are sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
each, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years.
The said order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Daman.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants are behind bars from
31.08.2026. During trial applicants were on bail. The applicants have not
misused the liberty. It may take time to dispose of the Revision
Application and requested to allow the application.
3. Learned APP strongly objected to allow the interim application
on the ground that Courts below have convicted the applicants. If they
released on bail, they may abscond, hence requested to reject the
application.
Page 2 of 3
501-IA-3387-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned
Judgment and order. The sentence imposed on the applicants is a short
term sentence. During trial the applicants were on bail. They have not
misused the liberty. It may take time to dispose of the Revision
Application. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
i. The sentence imposed on the applicants is suspended
till hearing of Revision Application.
ii The applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing
P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, with one
or two sureties in the like amount.
iii. The bail bonds to be furnished before the Trial
Court.
5. Interim application is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…