(1) Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2286 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 402 of 2024 LALA RANJAN BHOSALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …. Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A. S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) : 1. Heard rival submissions. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2018, is seeking suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment, during the pendency of this appeal and also his release on bail. 3. As per the prosecution story, one Kunal Kishor Bhosale lodged report at Loni Police Station on 18.05.2018 informing that on 17.05.2018 at about 8:00 pm, he had gone to village Pravaranagar along with his cousin Pravin Bhosale. They went to function of "Jagaran-Gondhal" in front of one Snack Shop. His cousin deceased (2) Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt Narendra and his niece injured Snehal @ Bhori Vilas Chavan had also come to attend the said programme. There was an earlier incident of quarrel between the accused No.1 and the deceased somewhere in the month of March-April, 2018. 4. On 17.05.2018 at about 8.15 pm, injured Snehal asked the deceased to go to home. At about 8.20 pm, the deceased and injured Snehal were passing from the front side of house of the applicant/accused No.1. Applicant/accused No.1 hurled abuses and threatened the deceased. The deceased then called the informant. The informant and his cousin Pravin immediately went towards the house of accused No.1 i.e. present applicant. Applicant/accused was saying that, he would kill the deceased and hurled abuses. The informant reached there. He saw that present applicant/accused No.1 was armed with knife. He inflicted blow of knife in the abdomen of deceased. He took out the said knife and inflicted it's blow on the right hand of Snehal, cutting her vein. Due to the stab by knife, the intestine of deceased protruded out. Applicant fled away from the spot. Both the injured were taken to PMT Hospital, Loni. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 22.05.2018. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there are material contradictions between the versions of P.W.1- informant and P.W.3 Snehal i.e. the injured in this case. According to Snehal, the (3) Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt applicant/accused inflicted knife injury on the abdomen of the deceased, but it was a single injury. She stated that, though she again went to the spot of incident with her grandmother, but by that time, the informant was not there and he arrived after they reached the spot secondly. 6. Further, there was quarrel between the applicant and the deceased prior to the incident of stabbing, and therefore, there may be possibility of converting the offence of murder into lesser one. According to her, the applicant is behind the bars for about eight years, as he was arrested on 23.05.2018. The cross-examination of P.W.1 also suggests that he might not be there at the time of actual incident. 7. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly supported the conviction of the applicant/accused and submitted that, the learned Trial Judge after considering the entire material on record, has convicted him, and therefore, now there is no case made out by the applicant for his release on bail. According to him, this is a second application of the applicant and the first one was in fact withdrawn by him. Thus, there is no change of circumstances. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 8. Admittedly, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the present (4) Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. However, on going through the material on record and the impugned judgment, it appears that there are material contradictions in the versions of eye witnesses, namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The injured Snehal is stating that at the time of incident P.W.1 i.e. the informant was not there at all. On the contrary, P.W. 2 has admitted that the deceased had already fallen down when he reached to the spot of the incident. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 definitely suggests that he was not having personal knowledge of the incident. Apart from that, it is a case of single blow and there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused prior to the incident. The accused is already behind the bars for almost eight years. Therefore, considering the possibility of scaling down of the offence and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, we are of the opinion that the applicant/accused can be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. In view of the same, we pass the following order :- ORDER (A) The application is allowed. (B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon the applicant/accused Lala Ranjan Bhosale in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2018 under judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 passes by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahilynagar is hereby (5) Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt suspended during the pendency of this appeal. (C) The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or more sureties in the like amount, if not required in any other case. (D) The application is accordingly disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/