CHANDRAKANT BHIKU NIBUDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                   8-IA-910-2026.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 910 OF 2026
                                                          IN
                                                APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026


                      Chandrakant Bhiku Nibude                                       ..Applicant
                            Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra And Anr                           …Respondents

                      Mr. Om N Latpate, with Pratik V Shinde and Riddhi N Darade, for the
                            Applicant/Appellant.
                      Smt. R.S.Tendulkar, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.

                                                     CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                     DATE :          1st OCTOBER 2026


                      P.C.:

                              APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026:

                      1.      Heard.

                      2.      Admit.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL               3.      Call R & P.
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.10.03
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 910 OF 2026 :
13:45:53 +0530




                      4.      Heard Mr. Om Latpate, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, and

                      Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, the leaned APP, for Respondent No.1-State.

                      5.      This is an Application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge

                      the Applicant on bail.
                      ARS                                      1/7
                                                        8-IA-910-2026.DOC

6.    By a judgment and order dated 5 th February 2026 in Session Case

No. 1130 of 2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, the

Applicant has been found guilty of the offences punishable under

Sections 376 (2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal

Code”) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 10

years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the major offence punishable

under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Penal Code.

7.    The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant is that, the

prosecutrix, who was then 75 years of age, was his aunt. The

prosecutrix was residing alongwith her daughter in law (PW-6). On 18 th

September 2019, the Applicant had taken the prosecutrix to a Doctor at

Kolvan, as she was unwell. On their way back, the Applicant took the

prosecutrix to an under construction house premises of her son. The

Applicant allegedly stuffed the handkerchief     in the mouth of the

prosecutrix and, thereafter, committed rape. The Applicant also

threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences if she disclosed the

incident. Upon her return to home, the prosecutrix narrated the

incident to her daughter-in-law (PW-6), who, in turn, related the

incident to the son of the prosecutrix (PW-3).

8.    The prosecutrix passed away during the pendency of the trial.

However, on the basis of the testimonies of the son of the prosecutrix

(PW-3), her daughter in law (PW-6) and the Medical Officer (PW-5), the


ARS                                   2/7
                                                        8-IA-910-2026.DOC

learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to return finding of guilt against

the Applicant and sentence him, as indicated above.

9.    Mr. Om Latpate, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted

that, the prosecutrix was then 75 years of age and the Applicant was

also 57 years of age. On account of the disputes that had arisen

between the son of the prosecutrix and the Applicant, the latter came to

be falsely prosecuted. The testimony of the daughter in law of the

proscutirx (PW-6) is unworthy of credence. In the absence of legal

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the Applicant on the

basis of surmises and conjectures.

10.   In opposition to this, Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, the learned APP,

resisted the submissions on behalf of the Applicant. Attention of the

Court was invited to the testimony of the panch witness (PW-1), who

witnessed the scene of occurrence panchnama and seizure of the

handkerchief of the Applicant and the spectacle of the deceased -

prosecutrix from the scene of occurrence. It was further submitted that

the testimonies of son (PW-3) and daughter-in-law (PW-6) of the

prosecutrix found requisite support in the medical evidence. Emphasis

was laid on the fact that three external injuries were found in the

person of the prosecutrix. Therefore, according to the learned APP, the

learned Sessions Judge was justified in returning a finding of guilt

against the Applicant.


ARS                                  3/7
                                                          8-IA-910-2026.DOC

11.   I have carefully perused the material on record. It is trite, at the

stage of consideration of a prayer for suspension of sentence, the

Appellate Court is not expected to evaluate the evidence meticulously. A

broad view of the matter is required to be taken. The evidence adduced

by the prosecution cannot be appreciated with a view to find out

lacunae, loopholes or shortcomings in the prosecution case. Instead, the

Appellate Court is required to examine whether the Appellant succeeds

in making out such a prima facie case that he can be said to have a

chance of success in the Appeal.

12.   At the same time, where the convict is sentenced to suffer a fixed

term of sentence, and it is unlikely that the Appeal can be heard and

decided expeditiously, the Appellate Court is required to exercise the

discretion to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Applicant on bail

during the pendency of the Appeal liberally, unless there are exceptional

circumstances.

13.   Keeping the aforesaid twin postulates in view, if the material on

record is appraised, evidently, in the absence of the evidence of the

prosecutrix, the fate of the prosecution case hinged upon the testimony

of PW-6, who deposed that the prosecutrix had narrated to her the

sexual assault perpetrated by the Applicant. It was PW-6, who had

apprised PW-3 about the said incident.




ARS                                   4/7
                                                            8-IA-910-2026.DOC

14.   If the testimony of PW-6 is perused, it prima facie appears

debatable where implicit reliance could have been placed             on her

testimony. PW-3 conceded in the cross-examination that, the incident

which she came to know from the people was deposed to by her before

the Court. This admission, prima facie, dents the claim of PW-6 that,

she had deposed the incident as narrated to her by the prosecutrix.

15.   It is true, the Medical Officer (PW-5) has deposed that she had

found external injuries on person of the prosecutrix and, in her opinion,

there was evidence of vaginal intercourse. However, the probabilities of

the case, especially in the light of the age of the prosecutrix, will also be

required to be examined at the time of final adjudication of the Appeal.

16.   The Applicant was an under-trial prisoner from 18 th September

2019 to 21st May 2023, and the Applicant has been undergoing the

sentence since April 2026. In effect, the Applicant has undergone a

sentence of about four years and four months. The Applicant is stated to

be of 63 years of age.

17.   The aforesaid factors also bear upon the exercise of discretion.

This Appeal is of the year 2026. Having regard to the large pendency of

the cases, it is extremely unlikely that, this Appeal can be heard and

decided expeditiously in near future. Cumulatively, the exercise of

discretion to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Applicant on bail

appears to be justifiable.


ARS                                    5/7
                                                          8-IA-910-2026.DOC

18.   Hence, the following order:

                                 : O R D E R:



            (i)    Application stands allowed.

            (ii)   The substantive sentence imposed on the Applicant,

            Chandrakant Bhiku Nibude, by the learned Additional

            Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 1130 of 2019

            arising out of Crime No. 418/2019, Paud Police Station,

            Pune, stands suspended till the final disposal of the Appeal.

            (iii) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on furnishing a PR

            Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one or two sureties in

            the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned

            Additional Sessions Judge.

            (iv)   The Applicant shall not contact, or give threat to, the

            first informant and the witnesses examined by the

            prosecution.

            (v)    The Applicant shall not enter the limits of Mulshi

            Taluka, District Pune, for a period of three years from the

            date of his release on bail, or till the final disposal of the

            Appeal, whichever is earlier.

            (vi)   Upon being released on bail, the applicant shall

            furnish his address(es) and contact number to the


ARS                                   6/7
                                                    8-IA-910-2026.DOC

      Investigating Officer and keep him informed in case of any

      change therein.

      (vii) The Applicant shall mark his presence at Paud Police

      Station, District Pune, on the first Monday of November

      and May, every year, till the final disposal of the Appeal.

      Application disposed.

                                      [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                             7/7