IA-3042-2026.odt Rohit Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3042 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2026 Ramtej @ Vimlesh @ Gavya Rama Yadav …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026. PC. 1. The Applicant who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the proceedings before the Trial Court has approached this Court seeking suspension of sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated 14.11.2025 convicting him for offenses punishable under Section 302, 323 and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and bail pending Appeal. The Applicant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. 1 ROHIT RAMDAS GHUGE Digitally signed by ROHIT RAMDAS GHUGE Date: 2026.09.30 10:56:30 +0530 IA-3042-2026.odt 2. Heard, Mr. Deshmukh, for the Applicant and Ms. Shinde, APP for Respondent-State, perused the Application and Appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that, on 06.03.2021, while PW No. 1, the Complainant - PSI, Navghar Police Station was on patrolling duty, one journalist informed him about the body of a person lying on the Municipal ground in front of S.N. College. PW No. 1 reached the said spot, where he saw the body of a person lying and hence, he called an ambulance and instructed a beat marshal to shift the body to a hospital. Upon examination of the body, the person brought was declared dead. On informing of the incident to the police station telephonically, PW No. 1 was informed that a person from Indira Nagar area had brought one Vicky @ Abhishek Singh. PW No.1 made inquiries with Vicky who disclosed that he was assaulted along with the deceased and both of them were taken in an auto-rickshaw from which the body was thrown. Pursuant to this, PW No.1 made inquiries from persons at the Indira Nagar Zopadpatti about the incident. Vicky, the injured witness named the Applicant as one of the assailants, who was taken to the Police Station for inquiry. The Applicant disclosed the names of other accused persons and they were brought to the police station. During the course of the inquiry, they gave information about the commission of the offence. Therefore, PW No. 1 lodged a complaint based on which Crime No. 160/2021 for offences punishable u/s 302, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the 2 IA-3042-2026.odt IPC came to be registered against accused persons. 4. During the course of investigation, various panchnamas were drawn, the dead body was forwarded for post mortem, muddemal such as four broken battens, soil samples, the samples of blood mixed with soil, clothes of the deceased were seized. Mobile phones of the accused were seized. CCTV footage was collected through expert witness PW No.5. The Applicant was arrested on the same day as the incident i.e. 06.03.2021. Investigation was concluded, chargesheet was filed. Case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. No defence witnesses were examined by the Applicant. The defence of the Applicant was that of total denial and false implication. 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied on an order of this Court dated 10th August 2026, granting bail to Accused No. 2 in the same C.R., submitting that the case of the present Applicant is on a similar footing as that of the Accused No. 2. He argued that, the eye witness PW No. 6 has stated in evidence that he has no knowledge about the further incident and has only seen the Applicant and the co-accused Chirag (Accused No. 4) slapping a thief. Thus, the Applicant has no connection with the homicidal death of the deceased. He further submitted that, there is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant. The electronic evidence in the nature of CCTV footage suffers from several procedural 3 IA-3042-2026.odt lacunae and is not reliable. The identification of the Applicant is doubtful. On all these grounds he sought suspension of sentence and bail for the Applicant. 6. Learned APP Ms. Shinde, countered the aforesaid submissions by submitting that the death is proved to be homicidal. She submitted that, the CCTV footage clearly spells out the role of the Applicant in assaulting the deceased. The CCTV footage has been played in Court and the Applicant is clearly seen in the same. There is no challenge to the seizure panchnama setting out the transfer of the footage from the CCTV camera to the pen drive and thereafter to the memory card. In the light of these submissions she prays for rejection of the Application for suspension and bail. 7. Appreciating rival submissions, following facts emerge with clarity. The CCTV footage clearly establishes the role of the Applicant. The footage which was played in Court during the evidence of PW No. 10 (Investigating Officer) is in consonance with the panchnama (Exhibit-45) which is transcript of the video. The Applicant is clearly seen in the CCTV footage assaulting the deceased. It also reveals from the footage that after the assault, the deceased went along with the Applicant. PW No. 6, an eye witness has deposed that he has seen the Applicant along with co-accused slapping a thief. Deposition of PW No. 5, prima facie indicates the chain of the custody of the footage from its collection to its 4 IA-3042-2026.odt production before the Trial Court. There is no challenge to the certificate issued under Section 65 – B of the Evidence Act. Thus, prima facie the role of the Applicant in assaulting the deceased is seen. The post-mortem report clearly reveals that the death is homicidal in nature. Thus, in our view, prima facie, the evidence brings out the role of the Applicant in causing the death of the deceased. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and considering the prima facie incriminating circumstances against the Applicant, in the backdrop of the gravity of the offence alleged against him, we find that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the Applicant and suspend his sentence pending Appeal. Consequently, the Application for bail and suspension of sentence is rejected and disposed of accordingly. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 5