1 907-IA-410-2026(CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 410 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2026 1. Pratibha Pralhad Golvankar 2. Amol Pralhad Golvankar/Naik ….Applicants VERSUS. State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Adv. Kshitij P. Samant, Appointed Advocate for Applicants (Through Legal Aid). Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. 1. Mr. Kshitij P. Samant, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. 2. By the present Application, the Applicants seek suspension of the sentence imposed by the Judgment and Order dated 14th May, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2021, whereby the Applicants are convicted of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.08.28 10:41:27 +0530 2 907-IA-410-2026(CR).DOC Code, 1860 ( “IPC”). In addition, Applicant No. 2 has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC. The total sentence imposed on the Applicants is one year, with the substantive sentence directed to run concurrently. 3. Mr. Kshitij P. Samant, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of almost four hours, especially when Police Station is 300 metres away from the place of the incident. He submits that there are no independent witnesses to the present crime. About the offence under Section 309 of the IPC, he submits that there is no iota of evidence, let alone any residue, to indicate that an attempt was made by Applicant No. 2 to self-emulate. 4. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for the Respondent-State submits that the offence which is the subject of Sessions Case No.54 of 2021 is a serious offence. He submits that the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros after considering the entire case, material and evidence brought on record, has convicted the Applicants. He submits that the Applicants have made out no case for suspension of the sentence. 5. Perused records.. 6. In the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the powers under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.. In paragraphs Nos. 33 and 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to various earlier pronouncements, has observed as under: 1 (2023) 6 SCC 123 Shantanu S. Dhudum 3 907-IA-410-2026(CR).DOC “33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. 34. In the case on hand, what the High Court has done is something impermissible. The High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the first information report, etc. All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts. Upon cursory scanning of the evidence on record, we are unable to agree with the contentions coming from the learned Senior Counsel for the convicts that, either there is absolutely no case against the convicts or that the evidence against them is so weak and feeble in nature, that, ultimately in all probabilities the proceedings would terminate in their favour. For the very same reason we are unable to accept the contention coming from the convicts through their learned Senior Counsel that, it would be meaningless, improper and unjust to keep them behind the Shantanu S. Dhudum 4 907-IA-410-2026(CR).DOC bars for a pretty long time till they are found not to be guilty of the charges.” 7. Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that the Applicants have a strong case for acquittal in the present crime. 8. In view of the above, the order of sentencing the Applicants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year as awarded by the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros in Sessions Case No.54 of 2021 is suspended till the final hearing of this appeal and the Applicants are directed to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions: ORDER (a) During the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2026, the sentence of imprisonment imposed vide Judgment and Order dated 14th May, 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros in Sessions Case No.54 of 2021 is suspended and the Applicants shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, each with one or more sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros. Shantanu S. Dhudum 5 907-IA-410-2026(CR).DOC (b) The Applicants shall furnish their residential address and contact details/Mobile number to the Investigation Officer. (c) The Applicants shall remain present before this Court as and when the Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2026 is listed on the cause list of this Court. 9. Interim Application No.410 of 2026 is disposed. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum