IA-2642 - 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2642 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2021 Hanuman @ Hanumant Lahu Bhoir .. Applicant/Appellant V/S. State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ------------------- Mr. Sagar Redkar i/by Sumit S. Vhanbatte, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Amit Munde, Addl. PP., for the respondent/State. -------------------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER 2026. ORDER: (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J). 1. Heard Mr. Sagar Redkar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. Amit Munde, APP, for the State. 2. The Applicant is seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending the appeal primarily on the ground that he has suffered a long incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. 3. The Applicant / Appellant has been convicted by a judgment and order dated 15.1.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane, for the varsha 1 of 8 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.08 14:31:47 +0530 IA-2642 - 2026.doc offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The Applicant / Appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction before this Court by preferring an appeal, being Appeal No. 616 of 2021, which is pending before this Court. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the judgments of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446 and Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) SC 788. 5. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is that as the Applicant has been incarcerated for a period of more than 10 years, and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, so also there are no extenuating circumstances or any criminal antecedents, the Applicant may be released on bail. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also invited the attention of this Court to the medical papers annexed along with the present application and pointed out that the Applicant is suffering from cataract in both the eyes, which requires urgent medical attention and even cataract surgery. varsha 2 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc 6. Per Contra, the Learned APP strongly opposed the release of the Applicant on bail pending the Appeal and submitted that the Applicant is involved in an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Learned APP submitted that the offence was committed in a calculated manner, as the Applicant was carrying a knife in his pocket and that it was not an act which took place on the spur of the moment or in a fit of rage. It was further submitted that the knife blow was dealt on the chest, which is a vital part of the body, and therefore, the Applicant knew consequences of his act. The Learned APP also submitted that the appeal itself could be taken up for hearing and urged that the bail application be rejected. 7. In Saudan Singh ( supra ), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under : “7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the advocate may not be present as has been set out in the report of the High Court but if they have already completed 14 years of actual sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate stand and the learned Judge can himself pass appropriate orders to at least examine those cases for release and the absence of the advocate cannot come in the way in such a scenario. 8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for varsha 3 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc the High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases where the person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not a repeat offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go bail can be granted and cases remitted for examination under the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938. In all these cases, there is a high possibility that if these people are released, they may not be even interest in prosecuting their appeals. 9. The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him. 10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with such matters.” 8. We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the Applicant has served more than 10 years of actual imprisonment, the bail application of the Applicant can be considered. 9. We had asked the Learned APP to call for a report from the jail authorities to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by the Applicant. The Learned APP has placed on record the record sheet of the Applicant submitted by the Superintendent, Kolhapur Open varsha 4 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc Prison. A perusal of the same, shows that the Applicant has undergone more than 11 years of actual imprisonment. It also shows that the behavior of the Applicant was satisfactory and he is in open prison. The report however, also states that the Applicant has not paid the fine imposed upon him by the Trial Court. 10. The Applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more than 11 years, his behavior is found to be satisfactory and he is in an open prison. Further there are no criminal antecedents and the appeal is of the year 2021 which is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future. Taking into consideration the above factors we are inclined to release the applicant on bail pending the appeal. 11. Apart from the observations made in Saudan Singh supra we are also guided by the decision of the Apex Court in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been observed “we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances, should be enlarged on bail." 12. We also refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2987 of 2023), where it is observed that “the appellant has varsha 5 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc undergone incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. In fact, the High Court ought to have granted relief under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the appellant.” 13. Taking into consideration the dictum of the Apex Court, we are inclined to allow this application. As a consequence, the Applicant is found to be entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. O R D E R A) The Application is allowed. B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2016 vide judgment dated 15th January 2018 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and the Applicant is released on bail on the following conditions: i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one or more local sureties. (ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the Nerul Police Station, District Thane, on the first Monday of every month for a period of one year initially, and thereafter once in six months till the disposal of the appeal, preferably on the first Monday of January and June of every year. In case of two consecutive defaults in complying with the varsha 6 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc aforesaid condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential address and phone number and inform the police if there is any change in the address or phone number. (iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without informing the Nerul Police Station, District Thane. (v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any, with this Court. (vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to disseize him/her. (vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout any of the conditions imposed herein. (viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the period of his release. (ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. (x) The Applicant shall also pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- as directed to be paid by the Sessions Court, Thane vide order dated 15.1.2018. 14. The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed varsha 7 of 8 IA-2642 - 2026.doc of. All other pending applications stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) varsha 8 of 8