18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1313 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2025 Santosh Vitthal Pawar ...Applicant- Appellant Versus The State Of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil, a/w Tohid Shaikh, for the Applicant – Appellant. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State. Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the State in Appeal/176/2026. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is second application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the applicant (A1) on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. The first application being IA/700/2025 was disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application after a period of nine months if, by that time, this appeal was not listed for final hearing. Since the appeal could not be taken 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.28 21:06:12 +0530 18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC up for final hearing, availing the said liberty, the applicant has preferred this application. 4. Savita (the deceased), the daughter of Arun (PW-1), was the wife of the applicant. The marriage of the applicant and Savita was solemnized on 30th November, 2012. Post marriage the deceased joined her matrimonial home at Hadapsar, Pune, where the applicant, his father Vitthal (A2) and mother Mangal (A3) were residing. 5. The indictment against the applicant and co-accused was that, in order to coerce the deceased to meet the unlawful demand of 20 gram gold, freeze, cooler and other articles, the accused subjected the deceased to unbearable harassment. The deceased had narrated her woes to the first informant and other prosecution witnesses. The deceased had made calls on the phone of Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5), relating the unlawful demands and consequent harassment. On 24th May, 2018, the deceased had called Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5) and narrated that an ultimatum was given to meet the demand within eight days, lest her in-laws would kill her. On the next day, Vithal (A2) made a call to Dhananjay Bhosale (PW-5) and informed him that the deceased had set herself ablaze. Eventually, the deceased succumbed to her injuries. 2/6 18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material on record, was persuaded to convict the applicant and the co- accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”). The accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, with default stipulation, for the major offense punishable under Section 304B of the Penal Code. 7. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred Appeal No. 170/2025 and the co-accused have preferred Appeal No. 176 of 2025. The co-accused have been enlarged on bail. 8. I have heard Ms. Anjali Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Haldankar, learned APP for the State. 9. Ms. Patil submitted that the Applicant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of 7 years, which is a fixed term sentence. In the matter of fixed term of sentence, the Appellate Court is required to consider the prayer for suspension of sentence liberally. The Applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial for 12 long years. It was not the case that the Applicant has abused the liberty while he was on bail. The Applicant has undergone sentence of imprisonment of one year 3/6 18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC and eight months. It is unlikely that this appeal can be taken up for hearing and final disposal in the near future, and, therefore, the sentence be suspended. 10. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Patil placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat1; Angana and Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan2 and the orders in the cases of Aasif @ Pasha V/s. The State of U.P.and Ors.3 and Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel and Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat4. 11. In opposition to this, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP, strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It was forcefully submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in order to meet the demand of dowry soon before her death. The day before the deceased met the death, she had made a call and narrated her plight. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 12. I have given careful consideration to the submissions canvassed across the bar. 1 (1999) 4 SCC 421 2 (2009) 3 SCC 767 3 2025 INSC 944 4 Cri. Appeal No.3415 of 2023 dt. 03/11/2023 4/6 18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC 13. The proved indictment against the Applicant is grave. Offence of dowry death is serious. The deceased met an unnatural death under six months of marriage. What accentuates the situation is the fact that the deceased had sustained 99% burn injuries. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically recorded that, the percentage and the nature of the burn injuries suffered by the deceased, firmly ruled out the explanation of the accused that the deceased had met an accidental death. 14. It is true, different considerations come into play when a person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde (supra), the Supreme Court has enunciated that, when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. 15. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in a line of decisions. 16. In the case at hand, upon perusal of the evidence, with a view to ascertain whether the Applicant stands a fair chance of acquittal, without trying to pick up lacuna and loopholes in the case of the prosecution, this Court finds that the emphasis laid 5/6 18-IA1313-2026INAPEAL170-2025.DOC by Ms. Patil on the use of the expression “in-laws”, (who made the unlawful demand and harassed the deceased) by the witnesses, does not advance the cause of the Applicant to the extent that, ultimately the Applicant may be entitled to have acquittal on that score. 17. Conversely, the circumstances adverted to above, namely, the death of the deceased under six months of the marriage, 99% burn injuries on her person, the consistent evidence of the father, brother and Dhananjay Bhosale (PW5), with regard to the narration of the demand and the consequent harassment in order to meet the demands, soon before the death of the deceased, prima facie, make out the exceptional circumstances, despite the sentence being fixed one. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence and release the Applicant on bail. 19. The Interim Application, thus, stands rejected. 20. Appeal Nos.170 of 2025 and 176 of 2025 be listed for hearing and final disposal on 24 September 2026. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6