Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

TABREJ SAYYAD RAHIMATULLA SAYYADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court suspended the substantive sentence pending the appeal and granted bail on a bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties.

Summary

The applicant, Tabrej Sayyad Rahimatulla Sayyad, was convicted under IPC sections 352, 332, 504 and 506, each carrying a maximum simple imprisonment of one year. The Additional Sessions Court had already suspended the sentence during the pendency of the appeal and granted interim bail. The applicant sought further relief to continue the suspension of the sentence and to be released on bail, arguing that he had previously been on bail during trial and had not misused his liberty. The State opposed, fearing the applicant might abscond if released. The High Court, noting the short term of the imposed sentences, the applicant’s prior bail record, and the likelihood of a lengthy appeal, ordered that the substantive sentence remain suspended pending the appeal and that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, to be filed before the Additional Sessions Judge.

Issues considered

  • Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant should be suspended pending disposal of the appeal
  • Whether bail should be granted to the applicant during the pendency of the appeal

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • suspension of sentence
  • IPC
  • criminal appeal
  • interim application
  • short term imprisonment

Judgment

                                                                                  93-IA-82 and 83-26 IN APEAL-34-2026.doc



                               N.S.Kamble


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2026
                                                            WITH
                                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2026
                                                             IN
                                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2026


NILAM
            Digitally signed
        by NILAM
        SANTOSH
                               Tabrej Sayyad Rahimatulla Sayyad                              … Applicant
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.20
        11:31:08 +0530
                                     Versus
                               State Of Maharashtra                                          … Respondent
                               ________________________________________________________
                               Mr.Deepak Tambe, for the Applicant/Appellant.
                               Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
                               ________________________________________________________
                                                               CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

                                                               DATE           : 17th JANUARY, 2026

                               P.C. :

                               .            Both these applications are for suspension of sentence and

                               for bail.

                               2.           Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned

                               Additional Public Prosecutor.

                               3.           The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable

                               under Section 352, 332, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for

                                                                Page 1 of 3
                                                    93-IA-82 and 83-26 IN APEAL-34-2026.doc



N.S.Kamble


short). The maximum sentence imposed on the Applicant is one year

Simple Imprisonment (‘SI’ for short) for each Section. The learned

Additional Sessions Court has suspended the sentence during the

appeal period and has granted interim bail to the Applicant.

4.           During the trial the Applicant was on bail. It may take time

to dispose of the Appeal. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

5.           The learned APP strongly objected to allow the Application

on the ground that if the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond.

Hence, requested to reject the Application.

6.           Considering the submission of both learned counsel as well

as sentence imposed on the Applicant is short term sentence. During

trial Applicant was on bail. He has not misused the liberty. It may take

time to dispose of the appeal. Considering these facts, the sentence is

suspended till final disposal of the Appeal.

7.           The Applications are disposed of in the following terms.

                                  ORDER

              (i)      The    substantive       sentence     of     imprisonment

              awarded to the applicant is hereby suspended pending

              disposal of the appeal.

                                  Page 2 of 3
                                                  93-IA-82 and 83-26 IN APEAL-34-2026.doc



N.S.Kamble


             (ii)      The Applicant-Tabrej Sayyad Rahimatulla Sayyad,

             be enlarged on bail in Crime No.128 of 2015 registered

             with Colaba Police Station, Mumbai, on furnishing PR

             bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like

             amount.

             (iii)     The bail bonds to be furnished before the learned

             Additional Sessions Judge.

             (iv)      The Criminal Applications are disposed of.



                                               (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                 Page 3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.