911-426-2020-Cri.IA-Corrected=.doc (Corrected as per speaking to minute order dated 08.12.2025, in bold) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3645 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2020 Rahul Rama Sargar … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ……….. Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Samay Pawar, Priyesh More for the applicant. Mr. A.A. Naik, APP for the Respondent - State. ……….. Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : November 28, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. It may not be possible for us to hear the matter inally, though an endeavour will be made by us to dispose of the matter inally on the next date. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 4 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.12.08 19:21:34 +0530 911-426-2020-Cri.IA-Corrected=.doc 4. We have considered the application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant on bail. The applicant / appellant has been convicted vide judgment and order dated 7th February 2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Session Case No. 20 of 2016 for the ofence punishable under 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life. The date of the ofence is 31st August 2015. It is alleged that the present applicant / accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Rajkumar with knife and gave a blow on his abdomen. 5. By order dated 19th April 2023, this court rejected the application for bail, by passing the following order :- “1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment of conviction. 2. The applicant/appellant has been convicted vide judgment and order dated 7th February 2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2016 for ofence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant/accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Rajkumar Shingade with knife by giving blow on his abdomen. Bhaskar Shingade/accused No.2 assaulted another person Sandipan on his face and stomach with knife. The other accused assaulted the victims by giving ist and kick blows. Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 4 911-426-2020-Cri.IA-Corrected=.doc 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is in custody for substantial period of time. The applicant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Counter case was iled by co-accused Bhaskar Shingade alleging that, victims and others had assaulted him and other accused. The ofences were registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC. The applicant was arrested on 1st September 2015. The appeal may not be heard within short span of time. The prosecution case sufers from contradictions and improvements. The case of the prosecution is based on interested witnesses. The incident took place by way of sudden quarrel and there was no intention to commit murder. 5. Learned APP submitted that, the incident is of serious nature. Two persons were killed by the accused. The applicant was armed with weapon which was used in assaulting the victim. 6. PW-1 Ramchandra Shingade is the eye witness to the incident. He has stated that, applicant/accused No.1 Rahul Sargar gave blow by knife upon Rajkumar Shingade. Bhaskar Shingade assaulted Sandipan with knife. Rahul Sargar assaulted the witness on his right hand. Bhaskar Shingade assaulted Suresh on his neck. PW-7 Suresh Shingade is another eye witness to the incident. He has deposed that, accused No.1 Rahul Sargar took out knife and gave blow on stomach of Rajkumar. He also assaulted Ramchandra and Babaso by knife. Accused No.2 assaulted Sandipan with knife and gave blow on the stomach. 7. There is suicient evidence against the applicant. The ofence is of serious nature. No case is made out to suspend the sentence and grant of bail. ORDER (i) Interim Application No. 2962 of 2022 stands rejected.” Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 4 911-426-2020-Cri.IA-Corrected=.doc 6. Learned APP submitted that as the application has already been rejected on 19th April 2023, there is no change in circumstance brought on record by the applicant for suspension of sentence. However, we ind that now the applicant has been in custody for more than 10 years. The appeal may take some time to be heard inally, as it is not possible for us to hear the appeal anytime soon in view of the pendency of the old criminal appeals. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail considering his long incarceration. 7. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the applicant – Rahul Rama Sargar in Sessions Case No.20 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli is suspended till the inal decision of appeal. The applicant is enlarged on bail upon furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant shall furnish his contact details viz. residential address and mobile number to the trial Court. The applicant shall attend to the trial Court once in 3 months on the irst Monday commencing from January, 2026. 8. The Interim Application is disposed of. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik ] Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 4