12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1543 OF 2026 Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj ...Appellant- Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Mohsin Shaikh, for the Appellant-Applicant. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 6th AUGUST, 2026 PC:- Appeal/535/2026 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. Admit. 3. Call R&P. 4. Issue notice to the Respondent. 5. The learned APP waives notice for the State – Respondent. IA/1543/2026 (Bail) 6. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.08 16:58:41 +0530 12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC 7. By a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2025 in MCOC Special Case No.158/2021, the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, has convicted the Applicant (A2) and co-accused Zakir Siraj Irani (A1) for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 506(2), read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act, 1999”) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of Ive years on each count, for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, and for an offence punishable under Section 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. 8. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been sentenced to pay Ine of Rs.25,000/-; for an offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Penal Code, Ine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, Ine of Rs.5,00,000/-, on each count. The aggregate amount of Ine comes to Rs.15,30,000/-. 2/5 12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC 9. The applicant has been in custody since 15th February, 2020. As the learned Special Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, the Applicant has already undergone the substantive sentence on each count. However, since the Applicant could not deposit the Ine, the applicant is undergoing the default sentence. 10. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that on account of poor Inancial position, the Applicant could not deposit huge Ine amount of Rs.15,30,000/-. The Applicant has undergone in default sentence of almost eight months in addition to the substantive sentence of Ive years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. Therefore, the Applicant be enlarged on bail. 11. The learned APP resisted the submissions on behalf of the Applicant. It was urged that, there is overwhelming evidence against the Applicant and, therefore, the sentence need not be suspended. 12. Evidently, the Applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence. It is trite, even if there is no maximum limit on the imposition of Ine under the provisions of Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, the amount of Ine cannot be disproportionate and exorbitant. The Court is 3/5 12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC enjoined to take into account the attendant circumstances, including the capacity of the accused to pay the Ine, while determining the quantum of Ine. In a such situation of the present nature, the Appellate Court is not denuded of the power to suspend the sentence of Ine. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Satyendra Kumar Mehra alias Satendera Kumar Mehra vs. State of Jharkhand1 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Sirpal2 13. As the Applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence and even almost eight months imprisonment in default of payment of Ine and it is extremely unlikely that the appeal can be heard, before the default sentence come to an end, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to suspend the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 14. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The application stands allowed. 1 (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 139. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3036. 4/5 12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC (ii) The sentence of Ine imposed by the learned Special Judge in MCOC Special Case No. 158/2021, arising out of CR No. 827/2020 registered with Dindoshi Police Station, stands suspended till the Inal disposal of the appeal. (iii) The Applicant, Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. (iv) The Applicant shall mark his presence at Dindoshi Police Station, on the Irst Monday of September and March every year, till the disposal of the appeal. (v) The Applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the Ine in the trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today. (vi) The Applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal, as and when directed. The application stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5