Bombay High Court
VIKASH SURESHCHANDRA PATHAKversusThe THE UNION TERRITORY OF DNH DAMAN AND DIU
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, given the debatable identification of the accused as the driver and the substantial time already served, the sentence should be suspended and bail granted pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Summary
Vikash Sureshchandra Pathak was convicted under IPC sections 304(II) and 308, and Motor Vehicles Act section 185, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He has been in custody since July 2022 and has served over four years. The appellant sought suspension of the sentence and enlargement of bail, arguing that there is no direct evidence identifying him as the driver of the vehicle involved in the fatal accident. The court noted the debatable identification, the liberal approach for fixed‑term sentences, and the substantial time already served, citing Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat. Finding a prima facie case and considering the pendency of the appeal, the court allowed the application, suspended the sentence pending the appeal, and granted bail on a bond and surety.
Issues considered
- Whether the sentence imposed on a convicted person may be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal under the principles of liberal approach for fixed‑term sentences
- Whether bail may be granted to an appellant who has already served a substantial portion of a fixed‑term sentence
- Whether the lack of direct evidence identifying the appellant as the driver affects the merit of the suspension and bail application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304, 308
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 185
Subjects
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- fixed term sentence
- identification of driver
- IPC 304
- Motor Vehicles Act 185
- appellate jurisdiction
- liberal approach
Judgment
14-APEAL86-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3879 OF 2025
Vikash Sureshchandra Pathak ...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr …Respondents
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, a/w Avishkar Sawant, for the Appellant –
Applicant.
Mr. Ashwin Thool, a/w Archishmati Chandramore, for the
Respondents.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PC:-
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
Appeal/86/2026
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.11
21:37:25 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
2. Admit.
3. Call R&P.
IA/3879/2025
4. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
1/4
14-APEAL86-2026.DOC
5. By a judgment and order dated 6th August, 2024, the
applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 304 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the
Penal Code”) and Sections 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
For the major offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the
Penal Code, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, with
default stipulation.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been in custody since the date of his arrest i.e.
17th July, 2022. The applicant has already undergone more than
four years of imprisonment, out of the maximum sentence of
seven years. Moreover, there was no credible evidence to
establish the fact that the applicant was at the wheel of the
vehicle, which ran over the deceased.
7. The learned Special PP for the State - respondent fairly
submitted that, there is no direct evidence on the aspect of the
identification of the applicant as the person who was at the
wheel of the car.
8. The material on record indicates that the question of
identity of the applicant as the person who was at the wheel of
the car at the time of the accident, is debatable. That question
2/4
14-APEAL86-2026.DOC
may require serious consideration at the time of final hearing of
the appeal.
9. The applicant is sentenced to suffer fixed term sentence.
Ordinarily, the Appellate Court is required to adopt a liberal
approach in the matter of suspension of sentence, in cases of
fixed term sentences. A useful reference in this context can be
made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others vs. State of Gujarat1.
10. In the case at hand, the applicant has succeeded in
making out a prima facie case that, he may have a fair chance of
success in the appeal. Even otherwise, out of sentence of seven
years, the applicant has already undergone more than four
years of the imprisonment. Having regard to the large pendency
of the cases, it is unlikely that this appeal can be taken up for
hearing and final disposal in the near future.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to exercise
the discretion in favour of the applicant.
12. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The application stands allowed.
1 (1999) 4 SCC 421.
3/4
14-APEAL86-2026.DOC
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 15/2022 arising out
of CR No. 65/2022 registered with Nani Daman Police
Station, Daman, stands suspended till the final disposal
of the appeal.
(iii) The applicant - Vikash Sureshchandra Pathak be
enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.
(iv) The applicant shall mark his presence at Nani Daman
Police Station, Daman, on the first Monday of October
and April of every year till the disposal of the appeal.
(v) The applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal,
as and when directed.
The application stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…