Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BAPU NAMDEV BHADVANKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The interim application is allowed; the sentence is suspended and bail is granted on a PR bond.

Summary

Bapu Namdev Bhadvankar was convicted by a Special Judge in Gadhinglaj of offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, receiving concurrent rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.20,000. The applicant filed Interim Application No. 3553 of 2024 seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail pending the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2024. The State, represented by the learned APP, was absent despite service of notice, and the court granted the applicant an opportunity to be heard. After noting that the maximum sentence was only one year and that the applicant appeared to have a fair chance of success on the merits of the appeal, the court allowed the interim application. The sentence was suspended and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a PR bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, subject to compliance with reporting conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the interim application for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail pending the criminal appeal should be entertained in the absence of the State’s representation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • suspension of sentence
  • criminal appeal
  • IPC 354
  • SC/ST Act
  • interim application
  • conviction
  • concurrent sentences

Judgment

                                                              38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3553 OF 2024
                                   IN
                       CR. APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2024

Bapu Namdev Bhadvankar                                    … Applicant
                      Versus.
The State of Maharashtra And Anr                          … Respondents


                                            -----
Mr. Anand S Patil for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

                                      -------
                                   CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                   DATE : 17th September, 2026.
P.C. :


1.       Heard Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.

S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP for the Respondent – State.


2.       By the present Application, the Applicant has sought for the

following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a):-

            a)        Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Criminal
            Appeal, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be suspend the sentence
            imposed by Ld. Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, Dist-Kolhapur in Special
            Case (S.C. & S.T) No. 6/2019 by impugned Judgment & Order dated
            6/05/2024&may kindly be release him on bail on such terms and
            conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.




Arjun                                   1
                                                                 38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx


3.      Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that

Respondent No. 2 has been served in the present Interim Application and an

Advocate has put in appearance for Respondent No. 2.


4.      On 09.09.2026, the following order was passed :-

           1. When this Application was called out, neither the
           Respondent No. 2 nor the Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
           were present in Court either physically or through VC mode
           though notice to the Respondent No. 2 is served.
           2. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and
           Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent - State,
           submits that an opportunity be afforded to the Respondent
           No. 2 / Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 to appear and
           argue the case.
           3. In view of the statement made by Mr. Anand Patil, learned
           Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, learned
           APP for the Respondent - State, list this Application on
           17.09.2026, under the caption "For Disposal".
           4. It is clarified that in the event the Respondent No. 2 /
           Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, choose not to appear, this
           Application would be heard on its own merits after hearing
           the parties present.
           5. Interim order, if any granted earlier, to continue till the
           next date of hearing.



5.      Office Note dated 11.09.2026, reads as follows :-

           1) Cri. Appeal No. 1159 of 2024 is pending for
           admission and kept herewith.
           2) Orig. Accused is on Bail.
           3) Muddemal preserving letter is sent.
           4) Adv. GH Keluskar has filed VP on behalf of
           respondent No. 2. Previous Adv. Machindra Patil not yet
           discharged.
           5) Notice duly served upon Respondent No.2.


Arjun                                     2
                                                          38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx




6.      Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP, on instructions from the

Investigating Officer, Chandgad Police Station, states that Respondent No.

2 was notified of the pendency and the date fixed in this Interim

Application as well as in the Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2024.


7.      Name of Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 (G.S.

Keluskar), was called out by the Shirestedar. No one appeared on behalf

of Respondent No. 2, either physically or through VC mode.


8.      Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, requested that

this application be taken up for disposal, as despite sufficient

opportunities afforded to Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 has chosen

to remain absent.


9.      By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 6.05.2024, the

Applicant is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 354 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)

(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Applicant has been sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 1 year, 6 months, 6 months and 6 months, respectively,

for the said 4 offences. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The

Applicant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the said 4 offences.



Arjun                                3
                                                           38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx


10.     Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the

Trial Court suspended the sentence vide order dated 06.05.2024 (page

numbers 27 and 29 of the paper book). He further submits that this Court

continued the suspension vide order dated 30.09.2024. He submits that

the said order remains in force as on date. He submits that the Applicant

has deposited the fine amount in court.        He therefore prays that the

sentence awarded to the Applicant be suspended and the Applicant be

released on bail pending the present Appeal.


11.     Today, by a separate order, Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2024 filed

by the Applicant is admitted.


12.     Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP for the Respondent - State,

submits that the Applicant has been convicted of the offences after a full-

fledged trial. He submits that the victim has supported the prosecution

case. He, however, does not dispute that the maximum sentence imposed

on the Applicant is 1 year and that the sentences are ordered to run

concurrently.


13.     Prima facie, a perusal of the grounds raised by the Applicant in the

memo of appeal in relation to the impugned Judgment indicates that the

Applicant has a fair chance of succeeding on the merits.


14.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the maximum


Arjun                                4
                                                          38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx


sentence in this case being one (1) year, this Application is allowed on the

following terms:


         (a)       During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.

         1159 of 2024, the sentence of imprisonment imposed

         vide impugned Judgment and order dated 06.05.2024,

         passed by the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, in Special

         Case (S.C. and S.T.) No. 6 of 2019, is suspended and

         the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

         execution of a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-,

         with one or two sureties in like amount to the

         satisfaction of the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj.


         (b)       Applicant shall regularly appear before this

         Court as and when the Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of

         2024, is listed on the Causelist.


         (c)       Applicant shall, within ten (10) days from

         today, provide to the Investigating Officer, Chandgad

         Police Station, investigating Crime No. 193 of 2019, his

         residential address with proof, the contact numbers

         and must inform the Investigating Officer about the

         change in the same from time to time.



Arjun                                5
                                                                     38-IA-3553-2024 (CR).docx


             15.     Interim Application No. 3553 of 2024 is disposed of.




                                                         [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]




        Digitally
        signed by
        ARJUN
ARJUN   KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE   Date:
        2026.09.17
        19:33:35
        +0530




             Arjun                               6


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.