IA-1804-2026.odt Rohit Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1804 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2026 Ashok Laljitkumar Chaurasiya …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Mr. B. A. Lawate, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER 2026. PC. 1. The Applicant, who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the proceedings before the Trial Court has approached this Court seeking suspension of sentence imposed on him vide order and judgment dated 18.03.2026 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The Applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Heard, Mr. B. A. Lawate, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. 1 ROHIT RAMDAS GHUGE Digitally signed by ROHIT RAMDAS GHUGE Date: 2026.09.09 13:31:21 +0530 IA-1804-2026.odt Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State. Perused the Application and Appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence is that on 20.05.2017 at around 11.30 pm, Mira Road Police Station received a phone call that there was some quarrel going on in the vicinity and two people have been seriously injured in the quarrel. The first informant, one Ankush Mishra recorded a complaint that four persons were consuming liquor, a quarrel broke out between them, two of them were beaten by Bamboo stick and sustained injuries. One of them was unconscious and the other were conscious. Police was informed, they arrived and took both the injured to the hospital. One of the injured namely Rajendra @ Rajan was taken to the hospital but, he died before admission. The other injured was treated and discharged after some time. One of the alleged assailants was accosted by the police at the spot. He is the co-accused. It is pertinent to note that, the FIR does not name the present Applicant nor is it the case of the prosecution that the Applicant was apprehended from the spot. FIR No. I-177/2017 was registered against the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 307, 302 and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police conducted investigation, recorded statements, the Applicant was arrested on 25.05.2017 in the wee hours of the morning, somewhere before 5.15 am. The panchnamas were drawn, bloodstained clothes of the Accused and 2 IA-1804-2026.odt deceased were sent for forensic analysis. Post mortem was carried out. After conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Since, the offences were sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The defence of the Applicant was that of total denial and false implication. 4. On behalf of the Applicant it was argued that the neither the informant nor the injured witnesses were examined by the prosecution, although their statements were recorded by the Police. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The chance witnesses who are examined and who identified the Applicant, are not eye witnesses to the incident and they are strangers to the Applicant. Since, they do not claim to have seen the incident, their identification of the Applicant for the first time in court cannot be relied upon. 5. Countering these submissions, learned APP argued that the death is proved to the homicidal. Although the first informant was not examined, the FIR is proved through the scribe of the report (PW No.1). The Accused have not given any explanation for bloodstained clothes seized at their instance by the police and hence, the prosecution has proved its case against the Applicant. 6. Considering rival submissions, following facts emerge. The first informant in this case, one Ankush Mishra has given a report in the 3 IA-1804-2026.odt morning of 21.05.2017 to PW No. 1 who is the ASI attached to Mira Road Police Station. This report has been treated as the FIR. It is pertinent to note that, taking the FIR as it is, it does not mention the name of the Applicant. For reasons best known to the prosecution, the first informant was not examined during the trial. In a departure from the established procedure, the author/scribe of the FIR has exhibited it in evidence. This procedural lapse has seriously affected the case of the prosecution. Although, it is not in dispute that deceased has died due to head injury and there are several injuries found on the body of the deceased, the evidence does not prima facie indicate the complicity of the Applicant as the author of the injuries which led to the death of the deceased. The prosecution has examined three chance witnesses who claim to be on the spot at the relevant time. Evidence of PW No. 11 is hearsay in nature. In any event he has not identified the Applicant in court. PW No. 13 is another chance witness. He deposes that someone told him that there was a quarrel and two persons were injured. This is also in the nature of hearsay evidence. Even the forensic evidence does not indicate any complicity of the Applicant in the offence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this is a fit case for grant of bail pending Appeal and suspension of sentence. In view thereof, the following order: ORDER i) The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court vide 4 IA-1804-2026.odt its order and judgment dated 18.03.2026, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2018 is suspended during the pendency of the Appeal. ii) The Applicant be released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with one or more surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. iii) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. iv) The Applicant shall inform the Trial Court of his contact details and residential address alongwith changes therein, if any. v) Infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle the State to move for cancellation of bail. Interim Application No. 1804 of 2026 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 5