Bombay High Court
VIJAY PRABHAKAR PINGALE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The Court held that the applicants are not entitled to bail and dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.
Summary
The applicants, Vijay Prabhakar Pingale and Vishal Prabhakar Pingale, were convicted under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment for a violent assault that caused grievous injuries to the victim. They filed an interim application seeking suspension of their sentence and bail pending the appeal. The trial court record showed that the victims identified the applicants and their weapons, and a medical doctor testified to the seriousness of the injuries. The High Court noted that a bail application in an appeal does not require a full re‑appreciation of evidence and that the prima facie case against the applicants was strong. Consequently, the Court found no error in the conviction and refused to grant bail, dismissing the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to bail or suspension of sentence pending the appeal
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the applicants under Sections 307, 506 and 34 IPC
- Whether the prima facie evidence is sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 34, 506
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- appeal
- IPC 307
- IPC 506
- common intention
- life imprisonment
- criminal intimidation
- attempt to murder
Judgment
ssm 12-ia4189.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4189 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2025
1) Vijay Prabhakar Pingale
2) Vishal Prabhakar Pingale …..Applicant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent
____________________________________
Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam a/w Mr. Aditya A. Thorat, Mr. Rayyan Shah and Ms.
Vedika Bhoir for the Applicants.
Smt. P.P. Shinde APP, for the Respondent-State.
____________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026.
P.C.:-
1) This is an Application for suspension of sentence and releasing
the Applicants on bail, during the pendency of Appeal.
2) Heard Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the Applicants and Smt.
Shinde, learned APP for the State. Perused record.
3) Applicants are convicted under Sections 307 and 506 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.330
1/3
ssm 12-ia4189.2025.doc
of 2018.
4) PW No.2 is the victim. PW No.2 in his testimony has deposed
that, on 8th March, 2015, when he was returning after attending Shiv
Jayanti Mahotsav at Meherdham along with his friends Mr. Sunil Shinde
and Rahul Pawar, at about 10.45 p.m., near HP Godown, due to earlier
enmity, the Applicants waylaid his motor-cycle and started abusing him.
Applicant Vijay was having a sword in his hand and Applicant Vishal was
having a wooden log. Both the Applicants assaulted PW No.2. They also
assaulted Mr. Rahul Pawar (PW No.1) who was accompanying PW No.2.
5) PW No.7, the Doctor who examined PW No.2 victim, has
deposed that, the victim suffered following injuries:-
i) Frontal of lt. Ulna shaft, comminuted and compound with
sharp cutting wound on dorsum of Lt. Forearm size
approximately 10cm x 5cm bone dump with completely
torn extensor tendons.
ii) Sharp cutting wound on dorsum of Lt. Hand of size
a) 6 cm x 2 cm x tendon clw tendon injuiry
b) 4 cm x 2 cm x tendon.
iii) Compound comminuted fracture of Lt. Olecranon process
of ulna with frontal of lateral humorous condoyle Rt with
an open wound of size 10 mm x 6 mm x bone clw.
iv) Head injury with frontal of skull bone with intracranial
bleed.
2/3
ssm 12-ia4189.2025.doc
v) Multiple sharp wounds on Rt. Ear, Rt. Temporal region +
posterior occipital region.
vi) Fracture of Rt. Acromion process of scapula with deep
wound on Rt shoulder of size 15 cm x 2 cm x bone clw.
5.1) He has further deposed that, all the injuries were grievous and
fresh. He has categorically deposed that, it was possible that if the patient
was not treated within time he could have lost his life due to these injuries.
6) The weapon used by Vijay has been duly identified by the
victim while recording his evidence.
7) It is the trite position of law that, at the time of considering an
Application for bail, in an Appeal the re-appreciation of entire evidence on
record is not necessary. After perusing the record prima facie we find that,
the Applicants are the authors of the crime in question. There is sufficient
evidence on record to indict them. We are of the prima faice view that, the
trial Court has not committed any error while convicting the Applicants.
8) In view of the above, we are not inclined to release the
Applicants on bail at this stage.
9) Application is accordingly dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally signed
SANJIV by SANJIV
SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR 3/3
MASHALKAR Date: 2026.03.10
12:44:42 +0530
Checking your session…