Bombay High Court
MANOJ MADHUKAR PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted and the sentence suspended pending the appeal because the appellant has served over 11 years, has no extenuating circumstances, and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.
Summary
Manoj Madhukar Patil, convicted of murder (IPC s.302) and criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120B) and sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed the conviction. After serving more than 11 years, he filed an interim application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail pending the pending appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019). The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents—Saudan Singh, Sonadhar, and Dinesh Paul @ Daniel Khajekar— which endorse granting bail to prisoners who have served over ten years when the appeal is delayed and no extenuating circumstances exist. Considering the applicant’s long incarceration, open‑jail status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the delayed hearing, the Court allowed the application, suspended the sentence, and granted bail with strict conditions. The order also directed the applicant to furnish bond, attend police stations periodically, and comply with other restrictions.
Issues considered
- Whether a prisoner who has served more than ten years of a life sentence and whose appeal is pending for an extended period is entitled to bail and suspension of sentence.
- Whether the absence of extenuating circumstances and the applicant’s open‑jail status justify granting bail under Section 389 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- life imprisonment
- IPC 302
- IPC 120B
- appeal pending
- long incarceration
- Supreme Court precedent
- CrPC Section 389
Judgment
IA-392-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2019
Manoj Madhukar Patil .. Applicant/Appellant
V/S.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
-------------------
Mr. Ritesh Thobde (through VC) a/w. Ms. Zubi Ansari, for the Applicant
/Appellant.
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent/State.
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR --------------------
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.30
12:48:39 +0530
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026.
ORDER: (Per Shreeram V. Shirsat, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Thobde, Learned Counsel for the
Applicant/Appellant and Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, Learned APP for the State.
2. The Applicant, by this application, is seeking suspension of sentence
pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, mainly on the ground
that the Applicant has suffered long incarceration of more than 11 years.
3. The Applicant/Appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Palghar vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 in Session Case
No. 18 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a
Vishal Parekar 1 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The Applicant was also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced
to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
4. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, the
Applicant/Appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court, being
Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019, which is pending before this Court.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that pending the appeal,
an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail was preferred,
which came to be withdrawn as the Court was not inclined to grant any
relief. The Court, however, was pleased to grant liberty to the Applicant to
make a request for taking up the appeal for final hearing at the earliest as
the Applicant was incarcerated for almost 10 years, vide order dated
02.08.2024.
6. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Applicant once again
moved an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however,
the said application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach
this Court again for his release on bail during the pendency of his appeal, if
the appeal is not taken up for final hearing for a period of one year from the
date of the order i.e. 15.03.2022.
7. The Applicant has approached this Court for suspension of sentence
Vishal Parekar 2 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
and bail as the appeal has not been taken up for final hearing despite the
two previous orders passed by this Court. The prime contention of the
Applicant is that he has undergone sentence of more than 11 years and that
the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. The learned counsel
for the Applicant relied upon the judgments of Saudan Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh1 and Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh2.
8. In Saudan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe
as under:
“7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the advocate
may not be present as has been set out in the report of the High
Court but if they have already completed 14 years of actual
sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate stand and the
learned Judge can himself pass appropriate orders to at least
examine those cases for release and the absence of the advocate
cannot come in the way in such a scenario.
8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for the
High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases where the
person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not a repeat
offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go bail can be
granted and cases remitted for examination under the Uttar
Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938. In all these
cases, there is a high possibility that if these people are released,
they may not be even interest in prosecuting their appeals.
9. The second category of cases can be one where the person has
served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at
one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating
circumstances against him.
10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the
aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be
troubled with such matters”.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant also submitted that the Applicant
1 (2023) 17 SCC 446
2 (2022) SC 788
Vishal Parekar 3 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
has been in jail since 31.10.2014 i.e. the date of his arrest. He further
submitted that there are no extenuating circumstances or any criminal
antecedents against the Applicant and therefore it was urged that the
Applicant be released on bail on any such terms and conditions as this Court
deems fit.
10. Per contra, the Ld. APP strongly opposed the release of the Applicant
on bail pending the appeal and submitted that the Applicant along with
other co-accused, had in a calculated manner committed the offence of
murder and therefore the Applicant need not be released on bail at this
stage. It was also submitted that this Court had on two previous occasions
rejected the bail application on merits.
11. We had asked the Ld. APP to call for a report from the jail authorities
to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by the Applicant.
The Ld. APP has placed on record the custody report of the Applicant dated
17.09.2026, submitted by the Superintendent of Jail, Visapur District Open
Prison, wherein it has been mentioned that the Applicant has undergone 11
years, 9 months, and 18 days as on 31.08.2026.
12. We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) and taking into
consideration that the Applicant has served more than 11 years of actual
imprisonment, the bail application of the Applicant can be considered.
Vishal Parekar 4 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
Considering the fact that the Applicant has undergone actual imprisonment
of more than 11 years and 9 months, that the Applicant is now in an open
jail, that there are no criminal antecedents and that the appeal is of the year
2019 which is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future, we are
inclined to release the Applicant on bail pending the appeal.
13. In the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonadhar v. State of
Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been observed that “ we are of the view
that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not
in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances, should be
enlarged on bail."
14. We also refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal
No. 2987 of 2023), wherein it was held that: “the appellant has undergone
incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. In fact, the High Court
ought to have granted relief under Section 389 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 to the appellant.”
15. Taking into consideration the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we
are inclined to allow this application. As a consequence, the Applicant is
found to be entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the
appeal.
Vishal Parekar 5 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
ORDER
A) The Application is allowed.
B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Palghar, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2015 vide
judgment dated 29.03.2019 is suspended during the pendency of
the appeal and the Applicant is released on bail, on the following
conditions:
i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one
or more local sureties.
(ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the
Vangaon Police Station, Tal. Dahanu, District Palghar, on the first
Monday of every month for a period of one year initially and
thereafter once in six months till the disposal of the appeal,
preferably on the first Monday of January and June of every year.
In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the
aforesaid condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an
application for cancellation of bail.
(iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential address
and phone number and inform the police if there is any change in
the address or phone number.
(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without informing the Vangaon Police Station, Tal. Dahanu.
Vishal Parekar 6 of 7
IA-392-2025.doc
(v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of this Court and shall deposit his passport, if any,
with this Court.
(vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case.
(vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout any of
the conditions imposed herein.
(viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the
period of his release.
(ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of the
final hearing of the appeal.
(x) The Applicant shall deposit the fine amount as directed by the
Trial Court before his release
16. The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed of.
17. All other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar 7 of 7
Checking your session…