(1) Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3821 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 749 of 2025 KARAN NAMDEO BANKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …. Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, 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 24, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard rival submissions. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused in Sessions Case No. 498 of 2023, 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, P.W.1-informant Deepali Baban Kuche was residing with her husband along with two children. Her husband was doing the business of selling illicit liquor. The said business was being run in a shop adjacent to their house. Namdeo Bankar i.e. father of accused used to 2026:BHC-AUG:44169-DB (2) Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt visit his liquor shop daily to consume liquor. Informant’s husband and Namdeo Bankar had friendly relations. On 10.05.2023, at about 7.30 p.m. in a routine manner, Namdeo Bankar came to informant’s house for consuming liquor. He consumed liquor for about half an hour by sitting in the shed/shop and then went away. Thereafter, his son Karan i.e. present applicant/accused came to informant’s house holding an axe in his hand. He assaulted informant’s husband with axe, but that time deceased husband of the informant had snatched the same. Thereafter, applicant/accused pelted stones over informant’s husband and went away from there. At that time informant’s husband told the informant that since there was quarrel in the house of accused, he was angry and in the fit of anger, the accused tried to kill him. 4. After some time on the same day, the applicant/accused and Suraj Bankar, child-in-conflict with law, came to the house of informant and they started abusing informant’s husband saying as to why informant’s husband was allowing their father to consume liquor. When informant’s husband was talking to informant, applicant/accused suddenly inflicted knife blows on the back of informant’s husband. Informant’s husband fell down and raised shouts. At that time, (3) Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt P.W.3 and P.W.5 came to help them. Informant’s husband shifted to Rural Hospital, Khultabad for medical treatment. However, declared brought dead. The informant lodged a report with Khultabad Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant/accused. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though the prosecution has claimed that there were three eye witnesses, but their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were not recorded and the concerned learned Magistrate directly recorded their statements under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, considering the contradictions among these witnesses, it appears that they were not present on the spot at the relevant time, but subsequently came to the spot. According to him, the person, who had given the information of the incident, was not examined and no test identification parade of the applicant/accused was held for Ramkrushna Aadhane (P.W.5), who was not knowing the assailant at all. He further submitted that, the incident had taken place due to sudden quarrel and considering the age of this applicant, coupled with the fact that, the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, he can be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal. (4) Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt 6. 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 evidence of eye witnesses, has convicted him, and therefore, now there is no case made out by the applicant for his release on bail. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. Admittedly, the prosecution case is based on evidence of three eye witnesses, namely Deepali Baban Kuche (P.W.1), Prabhakar Bisan Sonawane (P.W.3) and Ramkrushna Aadhane (P.W.5). However, the Investigating Officer, during the investigation, did not record their statements under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C., but directly recorded their statements under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. Moreover, there are certain contradictions in the versions of these witnesses indicating that they might not be present at the time of incident. Moreover, one Akhtar Patel, who had given the information of the incident for the first time, was not examined and his statement was also not recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer. It appears that the age of applicant/accused was only of 19 years at the time of incident and there was sudden quarrel at the time of incident between himself and deceased on the ground that the deceased was (5) Cri. Appln. No.3821-2025.odt allowing his father to consume liquor regularly. Further, the appeal being filed in the last year is not likely to be heard in near future. Therefore, considering the possibility of offence against the applicant being converted into lesser offence, under Section 304 instead of 302 of the I.P.C. we are of the opinion that the applicant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal, by suspending his substantive sentence of imprisonment. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER (A) The application is allowed. (B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon the applicant/accused Karan Namdeo Bankar in Sessions Case No. 498 of 2023 under judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passes by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is hereby 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/