23.apeal.432.26 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No.629 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No.432 of 2026 Vishal Kisana Vasanta Mahale and others vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Washim Gramin, Dist. Washim =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. Mrs. H.S. Dhande, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/Respondent. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2 026. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. 02. By the present application filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), the applicants/accused seek suspension of the sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, vide judgment and order dated 01/08/2026 in Sessions Case No.13/2025, in connection with Crime No.457/2024 registered with Police Station Washim (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 49 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’). 03. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, vide impugned judgment and order dated 01/08/2026 passed in Sessions Case No.13 of 2025, held the applicants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 105(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- each. 2026:BHC-NAG:12057 23.apeal.432.26 2/6 04. On the face of the record, it appears that the informant- Pandurang Ingle, father of deceased-Narayan, lodged the F.I.R. with Police Station Washim (Rural), alleging that his son Narayan was married to accused No.4-Sharda about 15 years prior to the incident and out of the said wedlock, accused No.4-Sharda had begotten two daughters and a son, aged about 13 years, 10 years and 2 years, respectively. There were frequent quarrels between deceased-Narayan and accused No.4. On 22/10/2024, at about 09:00 p.m., there was a quarrel between his son Narayan and his daughter-in-law Sharda. At that time, the quarrel was pacified. However, on 23/10/2024, at about 06:30 a.m., accused No.4- Sharda called her brother and informed him about the quarrel between her and deceased-Narayan. Thereafter, at about 07:00 a.m., Narayan went away on his motorcycle and at about 09:00 a.m., accused No.1- Vishal visited the house of the informant and took away his sister, accused No.4 and her children. The informant asked accused No.1-Vishal to send back accused No.4 and her children, but accused No.1-Vishal refused to do so. 05. Thereafter, at about 09:30 a.m., PW-2-Pralhad Sopan Ingle visited the house of the informant and informed him that he and Narayan had, at about 07:30 a.m., gone to Rajmudra Dhaba, a roadside eatery situated at Jambhurn-Mahali on a motorcycle and while they were sitting at the Dhaba, the brother-in-laws of Narayan, viz. applicant No.1-Vishal, applicant No.2-Sachin and applicant No.3-Anil visited the said Dhaba armed with a blue-coloured plastic pipe and an iron rod. Thereafter, the applicants allegedly asked Narayan as to why he had tortured their sister and inflicted blows with the plastic pipe and iron rod on the person of Narayan. At that time, PW-2-Pralhad Sopan Ingle tried to rescue deceased-Narayan from the clutches of the applicants-accused. However, the accused abused PW-2. Thereafter, applicant No.1-Vishal, applicant No.2-Sachin and applicant No.3-Anil took injured-Narayan on a 23.apeal.432.26 3/6 motorcycle towards Mangrulpir. Thereafter, the informant visited the Police Station to lodge the report. However, at that time, his cousin brother, Ananda Ingle, received a call informing him about the death of injured-Narayan. 06. The prosecution examined all eleven witnesses. PW-2 appears to be the eyewitness, whose testimony is in corroboration with that of PW-1-informant. PW-3-Abhiman Sawale turned hostile. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order and held the applicants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 105(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- each. The applicants were arrested on 23/10/2024. However, applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 were released on bail on 02/04/2025 and 10/02/2025, respectively. However, applicant No.2-Sachin was not released on bail. Therefore, it appears that applicant No.2 has been in custody for the last one year and nine months. Whereas, applicants No.1 and 3 were taken into custody on 01/08/2026, i.e. on the day of passing of the impugned judgment. 07. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants filed a pursis stating that the applicants have deposited the fine amount and relied on the following case laws to substantiate his case: I. Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others vs. State of Gujarat – (1999) 4 SCC 421. II. Kanaka Rekha Naik vs. Manoj Kumar Pradhan and Another – (2011) 4 SCC 596. III. Atul alias Ashutosh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – (2024) 3 SCC 663. 23.apeal.432.26 4/6 08. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application. The learned A.P.P. canvassed that the applicants are the brothers-in-law of the deceased and that they had mercilessly assaulted deceased-Narayan on account of the torture allegedly inflicted by the deceased upon his wife, i.e. accused No.4-Sharda and that the applicants caused the death of deceased-Narayan. Therefore, though a fixed-term sentence has been awarded, the applicants are not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application. 09. It is a matter of record that, though applicant Nos.1 and 2 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 49 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS for committing the murder of deceased-Narayan, the brother-in-law of the deceased, after going through the record, it appears that there were some matrimonial disputes between deceased-Narayan and his wife Sharda (acquitted accused No.4). On 22/10/2024, there was a quarrel between deceased-Narayan and his wife Sharda and thereafter, on the next date, i.e. on 23/10/2024, acquitted accused No.4-Sharda called her brother. Thereafter, the applicants visited the Dhaba, where the deceased was present, and the applicants assaulted deceased-Narayan with a plastic pipe and an iron rod, due to which he sustained severe injuries and appears to have died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. 10. Considering the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and held the applicants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 105(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a fixed term of five years. Therefore, considering the nature of the crime as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde (cited supra), when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence is considered by the appellate Court 23.apeal.432.26 5/6 liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, if, for any reason, the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits, more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise, the very valuable right of appeal would become an exercise in futility by efflux of time. 11. In the case in hand, the learned trial Court awarded a fixed- term rigorous imprisonment and there is less possibility of hearing the appeal in the near future, as the record and proceedings have not been received and no paper-book has been prepared. 12. In view of the above, I am inclined to suspend the substantive sentences awarded to the applicants and enlarge them on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R i. Criminal Application No.629 of 2026 is hereby allowed. ii. The substantive sentences awarded to the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, vide judgment and order dated 01/08/2026 in Sessions Case No.13/2025, are hereby suspended during the pendency of the appeal. iii. Applicant No.1-Vishal @ Kisana Vasanta Mahale, applicant No.2-Sachin Vasanta Mahale and applicant No.3-Anil @ Jagdish Parashram Mahale are directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) each, with two solvent sureties each in the like amount, in connection with Crime No.457/2024 registered with Police Station Washim (Rural), before the learned trial Court. 23.apeal.432.26 6/6 iv. All the applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station once in every month, i.e. on the 10th day of every month, until further orders. v. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 22:06:09