Anil Bhagwan Mhaske v. State of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2881 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1336 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2019 Anil Bhagwan Mhaske .. Applicant/Appellant V/S. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents ------------------- Mr. Somnath Vitthal Bhise, for the applicant/appellant. Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP, for the respondent/State. -------------------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026. ORDER: (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J).

¶1Heard Mr. Somnath Vitthal Bhise, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP, for the State.

¶2The Applicant is seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending the appeal primarily on the ground that he has suffered a long incarceration for a period of more than 13 years. 1 of 7 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.16 +0530

¶3The Applicant / Appellant has been convicted by a judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for the offences punishable under Section 302 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶4Against the said order of conviction, the Applicant/Appellant has preferred an Appeal before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2019, which is pending before this Court.

¶5The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the judgments of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446 and Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) SC 788.

¶6The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the Applicant has been incarcerated for a period of more than 13 years, and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. He submitted that the Applicant is in jail since the date of his arrest. He also submitted that there are no extenuating circumstances or any criminal antecedents against the Applicant and therefore urged that the Applicant be released on bail on any terms and conditions. 2 of 7

¶7Per Contra, the Learned APP strongly opposed the release of the Applicant on bail pending the Appeal and submitted that the Applicant is involved in an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the same has been committed by the Applicant by pouring kerosene on the deceased in a very brutal manner having knowledge and also the intention to kill her.

¶8In Saudan Singh ( supra ), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under : "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.

¶8We 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.

¶9The 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.

¶10We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with such matters." 3 of 7

¶9We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the Applicant has served more than 13 years of actual imprisonment, the bail application of the Applicant can be considered.

¶10We had asked the Learned APP to call for a report from the jail authorities to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by the Applicant.

¶11The Learned APP has placed on record the record sheet/custody report of the Applicant dated 4/9/26, submitted by the Senior Prison Officer/Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Open Prison, Pune, wherein it has been mentioned that the Applicant has undergone 13 years 4 months and 23 days of actual imprisonment.

¶12Considering the fact that the Applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more than 13 years, the Applicant is now in open jail, there are no criminal antecedents and the appeal is of the year 2019 which is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future, we are inclined to release the applicant on bail pending the appeal.

¶13We may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been observed "we are 4 of 7 of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances, should be enlarged on bail."

¶14We also refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2987 of 2023), where it is observed that "the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. In fact, the High Court ought to have granted relief under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the appellant."

¶15Taking into consideration the dictum of the Apex Court, we are inclined to allow this application. As a consequence, the Applicant is found to be entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. O R D E R A) The Application is allowed. B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 863 of 2013 vide judgment dated 19th September 2019 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and the Applicant is released on bail on the following conditions: 5 of 7

i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one or more local sureties.

(ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the Vishrantwadi Police Station, District-Pune, 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 of every year. In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

(iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential address and phone number and inform the police if there is any change in the address or phone number.

(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without informing the Vishrantwadi Police Station, District Pune.

(v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any, with this Court.

(vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 6 of 7 inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

(vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout any of the conditions imposed herein.

(viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the period of his release.

(ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of the final hearing of the appeal.

¶16The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed of. All other pending applications stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.) 7 of 7