1 CRIAPPEAL742-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.1220/2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742/2024 (VIKRAM HUKUMBAHADUR KARKI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO PS RANA PRATAPNAGAR, NAGPUR) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri Arjun Bobde, Advocate with Ms S.A. Jadhao, counsel for the applicant. Smt. Shamsi Haidar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. D ATE : AUGUST 31 , 2026 P. C. By this application, the applicant is seeking suspension of his sentence and releasing him on bail. 2. The applicant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on an allegation that on 04.06.2020 at around 2.00 to 2.15 p.m., informant Vaibhav received a phone call of his relative informing that the unknown persons injured victim Kartik near the Third Bus Stop. The informant immediately rushed there and he found victim Kartik was lying unconscious in the pool of blood sustaining severe injuries. Informant Vaibhav and Police thereafter referred the victim to the medical hospital however he was declared as dead. During investigation, it was revealed that applicant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle on the day of incident and he gave a blow of the iron rod on the head of the deceased due to which the death of deceased is caused. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the applicant by sentencing him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the applicant on the ground that other co-accused Ramu Gotame is already released on bail 2 CRIAPPEAL742-24.odt and on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 3. Shri Arjun Bobde, learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the evidence of eye witness viz. PW2 Vaibhav and submitted that if the cross-examination of this witness is perused, the aspect that he was the eye witness itself washes out and therefore the applicant is having every chance of success in the present appeal. In view of that, it is prayed that the execution of the sentence of the applicant be suspended and the applicant be released on bail. 4. Smt.Shamsi Haidar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering the evidence of PW2-Vaibhav who has witnessed the incident and categorically narrated about the act of the applicant, she submitted that at this stage, re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. She further pointed out that in Criminal Application No.181 of 2024, this Court has already considered the role of the applicant being the pillion rider who attacked the deceased by iron rod. The deceased died a homicidal death due to head injury. Thus, considering the same, at this stage, the application deserves to be rejected. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire record, admittedly the entire prosecution case is rested upon the sole witness, i.e. PW2-Vaibhav, who has narrated about the incident. As per his evidence, on the day of incident, two persons came on motorcycle and the pillion rider gave a blow on the head of the deceased resulting into his death. During his cross-examination admittedly some admissions, which the learned counsel for the applicant, has pointed out but at this stage, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 3 CRIAPPEAL742-24.odt 6. The law is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni Versus Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Another [Criminal Appeal No.1331-1332 of 2023] where in paragraph 33 it is observed that bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to look up few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. 7. In the case in hand, at this stage, when the re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible, nothing is brought before us to show that there are fair chances of acquittal for the applicant and therefore at this stage, no case is made out for suspension of his sentence and in view of that the application deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected as such. 4 CRIAPPEAL742-24.odt CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742/2024. The criminal appeal is already admitted. The Record & Proceedings are already received. The criminal appeal be listed on 22.09.2026 at 02.30 p.m. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 02/09/2026 12:15:00