Bombay High Court

NAMDEV DAGADU BHAGAT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Having served over 14 years of imprisonment without prior criminal antecedents, the appellants are entitled to bail pending the appeal despite the seriousness of the offence.

Summary

The appellants, originally convicted of offences under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, applied for bail pending their appeal filed in 2019, arguing that they have already served more than 14 years in prison. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the brutal nature of the murders and arguing that the conviction itself is an extenuating circumstance. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Saudan Singh (2023), which direct courts to consider bail for prisoners who have completed 14 years of actual sentence and have no prior criminal record. After verifying that each appellant had served between 14 years 1 month and 14 years 2 months, the Court found no other extenuating factors and held that the 14‑year rule applied. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, the sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and the appellants were released on bail subject to strict conditions.

Issues considered

Whether a life‑imprisoned convict who has served more than 14 years is entitled to bail pending appeal.
Whether the nature of the offence (murder) constitutes an extenuating circumstance that bars bail.
Whether the Supreme Court’s 14‑year guideline in Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is applicable in this case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302

Subjects

bail
life imprisonment
14‑year rule
IPC sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302, 149
Criminal Procedure Code Section 389
interim application
suspension of sentence
pending appeal

Judgment

IA-455-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 455 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2019

Namdev Dagadu Bhagat and others … Applicants/Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
******
Mr. Anush Shetty, i/b Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for Applicants/Appellants.
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for Respondent/State.
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
Date:
2026.08.25
******
15:35:43 +0530

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 25th AUGUST 2026.

ORDER (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anush Shetty, learned counsel for the Applicants/Appellants,

and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

2. The Applicants/Appellants are the original accused, who are seeking bail

pending the appeal, primarily on the ground that they have suffered incarceration

for a period of more than 14 years.

3. The Applicants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by

judgment and order dated 27th February 2019, for the offences punishable under

Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The

Bhalerao 1
IA-455-2025.doc

Applicants/Appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction by

preferring Appeal No. 460 of 2019, which is pending before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the present

application is filed on the ground of long incarceration of the Applicants/

Appellants, as they have been incarcerated for a period of more than 14 years.

The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of

Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2023) 17 SCC 446] and Suleman v.

State of Uttar Pradesh [Miscellaneous Application No. 764 of 2022 , dated 15th

September 2022].

5. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants by referring to the judgment of Saudan

Singh (Supra), has invited the attention of this Court to the following paragraphs

and urged that the Applicants be released on bail pending the appeal:

“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.”

Bhalerao 2
IA-455-2025.doc

6. The learned counsel for the applicants / appellants submitted that the

incident is a fallout of a dispute over agricultural land and there are no criminal

antecedents to the discredit of the applicants. Therefore, it was urged that

considering the period of incarceration, the applicants may be released on bail.

7. Per contra, the learned APP vehemently opposed the release of the

applicants on bail, considering that the applicants are involved in committing the

murder of two persons. The learned APP submitted that the offence was

committed in a very calculated manner, where four persons armed with axe and

other deadly weapons, repeatedly assaulted the deceased persons even after they

had collapsed and therefore no indulgence be shown. The learned APP further

submitted that the ghastly assault by the Applicants has ultimately led to the

death of two persons and that is the reason, the trial Court imposed a sentence of

life imprisonment. According to the learned APP, these are the extenuating

circumstances that disentitle them to be released on bail. The learned APP also

submitted that long incarceration is not the only ground that should be looked

into when the Court is considering the application under Section 389 of the

Cr.P.C. and therefore, urged that the bail application be rejected.

8. We are of the opinion that in terms of the categorization specified by the

Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the applicants

have served more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the bail application of

the applicants can be considered.

9. During the previous hearing of this application, we had asked the learned

Bhalerao 3
IA-455-2025.doc

APP to call for the report from the jail authorities to ascertain the actual years of

imprisonment undergone by these applicants. The learned APP has placed on

record, the record sheet of all four applicants. We have gone through it and we

find that all the applicants have undergone more than 14 years of actual

imprisonment, as detailed herein below:

Sr. Name of Applicants Period undergone
No. Years Months Days
1. Namdev Dagadu Bhagat 14 2 19
2. Chinky Namdev Bhagat 14 1 20
3. Dnyandev Namdev Bhagat 14 1 23
4. Srinath Namdev Bhagat 14 1 23

10. The appeal is of the year 2019 and it is not likely to be taken up for

hearing in the near future. The Applicants have already undergone 14 years of

actual imprisonment. Except for the fact that the applicants are involved in

offence where two persons have been killed, leading to their conviction for life,

nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating circumstances for

denial of suspension of sentence. The conviction for life perse cannot be said to

be an extenuating circumstance which would disentitle the Applicants from being

released on bail.

11. Following the observation made in Saudan Singh (supra), without making

any observations on merits of the case, only on account of the fact that more than

14 years sentence has already been undergone by the Applicants and that there

Bhalerao 4
IA-455-2025.doc

are no criminal antecedents, we are inclined to allow the application. As a

consequence, the applicants are found to be entitled to be released on bail during

the pendency of the appeal.

ORDER

(I) The application is allowed.

(II) The sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the Court of the Additional

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 598 of 2012, dated 27 th February 2019, is

suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and the applicants are released

on bail on the following conditions:

i. The applicants / appellants are directed to furnish personal

bonds and surety bonds of ₹50,000/- each, with one or more

local sureties.

ii. The applicants / appellants are directed to give attendance to

Saswad Police Station, Pune Rural, 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 every year.

iii. In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the

aforesaid conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an

application for cancellation of bail.

iv. The applicants are directed to furnish valid proof of their

residential address and phone number, and inform the police if

Bhalerao 5
IA-455-2025.doc

there is any change in the address or phone number.

v. The applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without informing the Saswad Police Station, Pune Rural.

vi. The applicants shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the Court and shall deposit their passports, if any,

with this Court.

vii. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with

the facts of the case in any manner whatsoever.

viii. The applicants / appellants shall not misuse their liberty

and/or flout any of the conditions imposed herein.

ix. The applicants / appellants shall not commit any offence

during the period of their release.

x. The applicants shall make themselves available at the time of

the final hearing of the appeal.

10. The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed of

and all other pending applications are disposed of. IA No. 2725/2026

filed by one of the Applicants for expeditious hearing of Appeal is also

disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Bhalerao 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…