Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16226 (BOM)

RAJESH RAMA SHITOLE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Through the Police Station Officer Sinnar Police Station

IA/3519/2026 · 2026-10-07

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

905- IA 3519 of 2026.doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3519 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2026 Rajesh Rama Shitole ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By this Application, the applicant is seeking suspension of sentence. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that Applicant was convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar by judgment and order dated 19/06/2015 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 39 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The Applicant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six month under Section 417 of IPC and simple imprisonment for two years each under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC. All VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.10.08 18:12:55 +0530 905- IA 3519 of 2026.doc Tikam substantive sentences to run concurrently. The Learned Sessions Judge has reduced the sentence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC to one year each and modified the judgment of Learned JMFC. Learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant is behind bars since 30/09/2026. During trial he was on bail. He has not misused his liberty and requested to allow the Interim Application. 4. Learned APP strongly objected to allow the interim application stating that if the applicant is granted bail, he may abscond and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel. The sentence imposed on the Applicant is short-term sentence. During trial he was on bail and not misused his liberty. Considering these facts, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Interim Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (iii) Interim Application is disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)