sg 1/5 34.ia.597-26.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2026 Govind Shankar Ghorpade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Mr. Datta Solankar, for the Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent-State. ... CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED: 24th AUGUST, 2026 P.C:- 1. This is an Application seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, Thane, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 along with a prayer for grant of bail. 2. The Applicant is the solitary accused who was arraigned for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The present Applicant was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2026.08.25 18:49:33 +0530 sg 2/5 34.ia.597-26.docx punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer RI for one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the Applicant has separately preferred Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2026, which was admitted by this Court vide its order dated 26.02.2026. 4. Heard Mr. Datta Solankar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the Interim Application and the Record. 5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that, the first informant lodged a report against the Applicant, alleging that, on 30.11.2016, her daughter-in-law one Sujata was fetching water from the tap at about 7.00 p.m. while the son of the Applicant pelted stone on her. Sujata went to the house of the Applicant to admonish him about this act of his son. However, the Applicant abused her in filthy words. Thereafter, Sujata’s mother Malati (deceased) and her son Vicky Waghe went to the house of the sg 3/5 34.ia.597-26.docx Applicant. The Applicant abused him, brought a knife from the house and inflicted a blow of the knife on the chest of Malati Waghe (the deceased). Vicky tried to intervene but the Applicant stabbed him also with the knife. People gathered there on the spot. Both injured were taken to hospital. Malati died in the hospital on the same day. Vicky was admitted for three weeks. The police registered the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, panchnamas were drawn up. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On culmination of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. During trial, the Applicant pleaded not guilty and took up a defence of total denial. 6. On behalf of the Applicant it was contended that PW Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were interested witnesses since they were related in some manner to the deceased. Hence, their evidence ought to be discarded. It was also urged that there were several contradictions and omissions which go to the root of the matter which was not appreciated by the trial Court. The recovery against the accused was from an open and accessible place, and hence, ought not to have been relied upon. Lastly, it was sg 4/5 34.ia.597-26.docx submitted that the Applicant has spent more than six years in jail and he may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by this Court. 7. Learned APP Mr. Khan opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the evidence of PW No.2 Vicky is clear and cogent. He has witnessed the assault and was also injured by the accused. The testimony of the injured witness stands on a higher footing. The evidence of PW No.2 is corroborated by evidence of PW No.3 – Sujata, who also narrates the incident as witnessed by her. PW No.6 is a relative of Malati and Vicky. He is also an eye witness to the incident. Thus, the incident of assault on Vicky and Malati was witnessed by three eye-witnesses, whose evidence has remained unshaken in cross-examination. In addition to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the incriminating circumstance of recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused, coupled with the medical evidence corroborating the injuries sustained by the deceased, clearly establishes the complicity of the Applicant in the commission of the offence. The offence is heinous and serious in nature. Hence, he prayed that the bail may not be granted. sg 5/5 34.ia.597-26.docx 8. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the testimony of multiple eye-witnesses establish not only the presence of the Applicant on the spot but the manner in which he has inflicted injuries with the knife on the deceased. Medical evidence corroborates these injuries. The evidence of the eye-witnesses does not suffer from any significant contradiction either between themselves or with their previous statements. PW No.5 has proved the panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act where knife was recovered at the instance of the accused. The knife was recovered from basement of the house of the Applicant. Apart from false implication, the Applicant has not come out with any other defence. In the wake of the aforesaid circumstances and in light of the brutality with which the offence has been committed, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case to grant bail. 9. In view thereof, bail application stands rejected. Interim Application No.597 of 2026 is disposed of, pending the appeal. (ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)