AAKASH SHUKLAL BHOYEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                      44. Interim Application No. 4756 of 2025 (ia).doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4756 OF 2025
                                IN
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2025



 Aakash Shuklal Bhoye                                       ...Appellant
           Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr.                                 ...Respondents

                                  ****
Mr. Rajay Gaikwad with Mr. Nilesh Mohite for the Appellant.
Mr. Rishikesh Pethe , APP for the State.
                                  ****

                         CORAM :     R.M. JOSHI, J.
                           DATE :    20th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :


1.            The learned Counsel for the Appellant makes statement

that the Appellant has deposited fine amount before the Trial Court. The

statement is accepted.

2.       This Application is for suspension of the sentence and

enlargement of the Appellant on bail in connection with judgment and

order dated 10th October 2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 242 of 2020

whereby the Appellant /Original Accused No.1 came to be convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentence to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1 lakh with

default sentence.




                                                                     1
                                       44. Interim Application No. 4756 of 2025 (ia).doc



3.            Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that , the

Appellant is directed to undergo fixed terms sentence. He drew

attention of the Court to the evidence of injured who in examination-

in-chief does not state that the assailants came to the spot with their

faces covered, in the cross-examination he admits the said fact. He

further drew attention of the Court to the evidence of the Investigating

Officer, which indicates that during the investigation, it was not

revealed that the assailants had covered their faces. This according to

him, creates serious doubt with regard to the testimony of the injured

and coupled with the fact that there was previous enmity between the

parties, offence is not proved beyond doubt.

4.            Learned APP opposed the Application by contending that

the evidence of injured witness which shows that the Appellant-accused

and co-accused caused assault on him. It is his submission that since the

Appellant and the injured had acquaintance with each other, even if

their faces were covered, it was possible for the injured to identify

Appellants.

5.            In order to seek any order of suspension of sentence and

enlargement on bail, Appellant has to prima facie make out the case for

fair chance of success in the appeal. The injured in his testimony before

the Court has not state that the assailants had been to the spot with

their faces covered and their eyes only being visible. In the cross-


                                                                      2
                                           44. Interim Application No. 4756 of 2025 (ia).doc



examination however, he admits the said fact in no uncertain terms.

Even if this Court accepts the contention of learned APP that there is

every possibility of a known person being identified in spite of the face

covered, the evidence of Investigating Officer does not indicate so,

when he does not state about such fact being revealed in the

investigation. Thus, there is clear inconsistency in the evidence of the

injured and the Investigating Officer. It becomes material in view of

admitted fact that there are disputes between the parties. As such, this

is a case wherein it can be said that the Appellant has fair chance of

success in the appeal.

6.              The   Appellant   is    sentenced       to      suffer        seven            years

imprisonment. The appeal is not likely incurred in a short period of

time. In order to ensure that the appeal does not become infructuous

and also in view of the fact that the Appellant has good chance of

success, Application deserves to be allowed. The Appellant has no

criminal history behind him he is not likely to flee. Hence the following

order:

                                       ORDER

          (i)         The substantive sentence imposed against the
          Appellant- Accused by the trial Court by the judgment
          and order dated 10th October 2025 passed in Sessions
          Case No. 242 of 2020 stands suspended till the decision



                                                                          3
                                          44. Interim Application No. 4756 of 2025 (ia).doc



            of the appeal.
            (ii)      The Appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing
            PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like
            amount.
            (iii)     Bail before the Trial Court.
            (iv)      Appellant not to contact victim or any witness
            in any manner whatsoever.
            (v)       In order to ensure that, the Appellant is
            available during the hearing of the Appeal, the Appellant
            to mark his attendance before the concerned police
            station once in six months.
            (vi)      Any breach of this condition will result the
            vacation of this order and the Appellant shall be taken in
            custody for undergoing the remaining sentence.
            (vii)     The observations made herein above are prima
            facie in nature and won’t bind parties at time of hearing
            of appeal.




                                                     (R.M. JOSHI, J.)




Mandar M.




                                                                         4