5-ia.2921.2026..doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2921 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026 Nilesh Dinkar Dhoke ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C. : 1. The appeal preferred by the appellant having been admitted, the present application is filed seeking suspension of sentence and release of the applicant on bail. The present applicant, who was arraigned as accused No.1, has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and has been sentenced to suffer N. S. Chitnis 1/6 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.09.02 17:16:15 +0530 5-ia.2921.2026..doc imprisonment for life, along with fine and a default sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the orders passed by two Division Benches in applications filed by the co-accused, namely, Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke and Prasad Shirish Mule, who have been released on bail, and he seeks parity with the said applicants. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. The learned A.P.P submits that the point of distinction as regards the role and the involvement of the present applicant is there is recovery of one iron rod from him, which is alleged to be the weapon used in the commission of the offence. On 17th April 2026, while deciding the Interim Application filed by the co-accused, Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke, the Division Bench considered the facts leading to the prosecution case. It was the prosecution case that the mobile phone of accused No.1, i.e. the N. S. Chitnis 2/6 5-ia.2921.2026..doc present applicant, was found in the possession of the deceased and, to get that mobile phone back, the accused persons called deceased-Nitin Jadhav, near Galaxy Hospital. According to the prosecution, they snatched the mobile phone and assaulted him with fist, kick blows and iron rod, as a result of which he fell on the road and on being admitted to the Civil Hospital, while undergoing treatment passed away on 23rd April 2023, much after the date of the incident, i.e. 8th April 2023. While considering the application of the wife of the applicant viz. Pallavi Nilesh Dhoke, the Division Bench came to an opinion that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of Nitin though they had knowledge that, if assaulted with an iron rod, he may suffer fatal injuries. Prima facie, expressing the opinion that the case of the applicant may fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and that the applicant has committed an offence contemplated under Section 304 (Part-II) and not under Section 302 of the IPC, the applicant- Pallavi Dhoke, i.e. the wife of the present applicant was released on bail. Another Division Bench to which one of us (Bharati Dangre, J.) is a member, while considering N. S. Chitnis 3/6 5-ia.2921.2026..doc the application of co-accused-Prasad Mule adopted the same analogy and relied upon the order passed in the case of co-accused- Pallavi Dhoke 4. The present applicant before us is the husband of co- accused Pallavi Dhoke. If it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons were present at the time when Nitin Jadhav (deceased) was assaulted and that, on account of the injuries caused to him, he succumbed in the hospital, we see no reason why the reasoning adopted by the two Division Benches should not be extended to the present applicant. We have also noted that the present applicant was not on bail during the trial. In the wake of the prima facie opinion expressed in the order dated 17th April 2026 that the case may fall within Section 304 (Part II) of IPC, as there was no intention and the fact that the incident occurred when the deceased had come to return the mobile phone, coupled with the fact that the death occurred after a time gap, we deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of the said orders to the present applicant. Hence, we pass the following order: N. S. Chitnis 4/6 5-ia.2921.2026..doc ORDER (i) During the pendency of Appeal preferred by the Applicant, the substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 23rd January, 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.318 of 2023, is suspended and the Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount; (ii) Before his release from jail, the Applicant shall give his prospective residential address and the mobile and/or landline number on which he or his any close relative can be contacted; (iii) After his release from jail, the Applicant shall mark his appearance before the trial Court, once in every month, between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., during the pendency of the Appeal; (iv) In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file N. S. Chitnis 5/6 5-ia.2921.2026..doc application for cancellation of bail. 5. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 6/6