(1) Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2026 SUNIL JANGALU MALI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Gaurav Bhawani, Advocate holding for Mr. Ashish Hazari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent-State. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2026 SITARAM APPA TALWARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Gaurav Bhawani, Advocate holding for Mr. Ashish Hazari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent-State. Mr. Nitin Salunke, Advocate appointed through Legal Services Authority for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : 17.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.08.2026 Final order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) : 1. By Criminal Application No. 582 of 2026, the applicant, i.e. original accused No.1 and applicant in Criminal Application No. 586 of 2026 i.e. original accused No.5 in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2019, are seeking suspension of their substantive sentences of life (2) Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt imprisonment and their release on bail. Admittedly, the applicants were an under trial prisoners and behind the bars since last around seven years. 2. As per the prosecution story, the present applicants along with other accused, on 07.08.2019, took away one Samadhan @ Buriya Shamdas Sonawane i.e. cousin brother-in-law of the informant Jitendra More (PW-1) on motorcycle from Civil Hospital, Dhule and proceeded to village Manke. The informant was also with them. On the way to village Manke, after passing village Lalling at about 11.30 p.m., all the accused stopped their motorcycle and started beating Samadhan. Samadhan was taken towards one streamlet by the side of road along with the informant. Then the aforesaid applicants strangulated Samadhan with the help of scarf (Uparne/Gamcha) to death. Thereafter, they took informant with them and dropped him at Shirud-Chaufuli and threatened him not to disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter, according to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, all the accused were charge-sheeted. Though the learned Trial Judge acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4, but convicted the applicants for committing murder of Samadhan. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the informant, who was also the eye witness to the incident, has not acted diligently for lodging the F.I.R., despite knowing the incident well in (3) Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt advance. He further added that, the learned Trial Judge had already discarded the evidence in respect of recovery of incriminating articles, such as ligature material at the instance of the accused. Moreover, the investigating officer also stated that nobody was seen in CCTV footage of the Toll Plaza while going to Lalling. The learned Trial Judge has also disbelieved the recovery of mobile handset of the deceased at the hands of accused No.1- Sitaram. According to him, the applicants are behind the bars for almost around seven years, and therefore, considering the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye witness P.W.1 i.e. the informant, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the applicants can be suspended during the pendency of this appeal. 4. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and submitted that, there is direct evidence of the informant against the present applicants, and therefore, merely the F.I.R. is lodged belatedly, no benefit can be granted to the applicants. As such, they prayed for dismissal of the applications. 5. Heard rival submissions, also perused the evidence on record along with the impugned judgment. 6. Admittedly, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the applicants mainly on the evidence of informant P.W.1 Jitendra More. However, it is also important to note that the learned Trial Judge has discarded the (4) Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt evidence relating to discovery of ligature material as well as mobile handset of the deceased at the instance of the applicants. It is to be noted that, the incident had taken place at about 9.30 p.m. on 07.08.2019 and according to P.W.-1, he was dropped at Shirud- Chaufuli by the accused persons around 12.30 a.m. of 08.08.2019 and he reached home in the early morning. Moreover, it has come in the evidence that, from 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. on that day, he was in the hospital, where police were also present, but he has admitted that he did not tell anything about the incident to the police. Moreover, the spot panchnama was also drawn on that day at 6.15 p.m., but at that time also the informant, who was present there, did not disclose the name of accused persons. 7. It is important to note that, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. in the night on that day i.e. 08.08.2019. That means, despite witnessing the incident on the earlier day, P.W.-1 did not disclose it to police for about 24 hours. Though it has come in the evidence of P.W.-8 Ganesh that the informant had already told about the incident to police, but the informant in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that till lodging the F.I.R. he did not disclose the incident to police. Moreover, the Investigating Officer is also unable to state as to what time the informant made disclosure of the offence to him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.-1 about witnessing the incident appears doubtful. (5) Cri. Appln. No. 582-2026.odt 8. It is also important to note that the present applicants are behind the bars for about seven years, and therefore, considering the doubtful conduct of the P.W.-1, we are of the opinion that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the present applicants can be suspended, since there is no likelihood of hearing the appeal in near future. In view of the same, we pass the following order. ORDER (A) The applications are allowed. (B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon the applicants namely Sitaram Appa Talware and Sunil Jangalu Mali, who are accused Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2019 under judgment and order dated 16.05.2025 is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal. (C) The applicants are released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount. (D) The applications are accordingly disposed of. (E) The fees of the learned counsel appointed for Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No. 586 of 2026 is quantified at Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three Thousand only) to be paid by the High Court Legal Services, Sub Committee, Aurangabad. (VAISHALI JADHAV-PATIL) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/-