6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3240 OF 2026 IN APEAL/645/2026 SANDEEP NAMDEO KHADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3311 OF 2026 IN APEAL/645/2026 KAILAS BABURAO SONAWANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .… Mr. Kishor D. Khade, Advocate for Applicants Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent - State .… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : August 24, 2026 August 25, 2026 O R D E R :- 1. The present applicants have moved this Court for suspension of sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed dated 27.07.2026 in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2017 convicting both the applicants for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:38433 (( 2 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026 2. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3240 of 2026 is accused No. 1, whereas the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3311 of 2026 is arrayed as accused No. 2. It is submitted that both the applicants have been falsely implicated. There are allegations that, in view of a previous family dispute, the informant was assaulted with an iron rod. However, it is pointed out that the alleged assault was on the left leg, back, knee, right leg, and near the shoulder of the left hand of the informant. It is further pointed out that the injury certificate shows that the injuries suffered by the informant are simple in nature. Both the applicants were beneficiaries of anticipatory bail. Now, after their conviction, they have preferred appeals. However, since the appeal is of the year 2026, it is likely to take a considerable period for its final adjudication. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel has urged that the sentence be suspended and the applicants be released on bail. 3. The learned APP strongly opposed the applications on the ground that, having regard to the nature of the allegations, i.e., the 2 of 5 (( 3 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026 use of an iron rod, the intention of the accused, and the manner of assault from behind, the intention of the accused was explicit. There was use of a deadly weapon, i.e., an iron rod. There was also an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Hence, she opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the present applications for suspension of sentence arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2017, whereby the applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations against the present applicants are that they used an iron rod and also assaulted the victim with fists and blows. The injury certificate shows that the injuries suffered by the victim were simple in nature. However, it is settled law that the nature of the injury is not of much relevance while considering an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Taking into consideration the submissions made across the bar that there was an old family dispute, the fact that the applicants were beneficiaries of anticipatory bail, and 3 of 5 (( 4 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026 further considering that the appeal is of the year 2026, likely to take a sufficiently long period for hearing, the relief as prayed for deserves to be granted. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R (i) Criminal Applications stand allowed. (ii) The substantive sentence imposed on the applicants i.e. Sandeep Namdeo Khade (Applicant in Criminal Application No.3240 of 2026) and Kailas Baburao Sonwane (Applicant in Criminal Application No.3311 of 2026) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed in Sessions Case No.55 of 2017 dated 27.07.2026, stands suspended till final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal Nos.645 of 2026. (iii) The applicants be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each in the like amount. (iv) The applicants shall not commit any criminal activity. (v) The applicants shall remain present before the learned trial Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal, commencing from the date they tenders bail papers and thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for their subsequent appearances. (vi) In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicants to remain present before the trial Court, the trial Court to inform this Court about the same and in that 4 of 5 (( 5 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026 eventuality, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the applicants. (vii) Bail before the trial Court. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ] SMS 5 of 5