(1) Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3285 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026 PINTU @ ANKUSH BALIRAM RATHOD ….. APPLICANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. RESPONDENT …. Mr. S. S. Palnitkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent-State. …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 09/09/2026 ORDER ( PER : SANDIPKUMAMR C. MORE, J.) : 1. Heard rival submissions. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024, is seeking suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment, during the pendency of this appeal and also his release on bail. 3. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant, along with the other accused, on account of an earlier dispute, allegedly entered the house of the deceased on 10.10.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. At that time, the son of the informant, namely Vinod, was resting on a cot in the courtyard. It is alleged that all the accused had come with the (2) Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt intention of killing Vinod. Accordingly, the present applicant, who is accused No. 2, threw chilli powder into Vinod's eyes and accused No.1, Dhondiba, inflicted a knife blow on Vinod's chest. It is further alleged that, at the time of the assault, the accused No.3 Kashabhai had caught hold of Vinod to prevent him from escaping. Thereafter, accused No.4, Kalpana, also threw chilli powder at the informant and his family members when they rushed to the spot to rescue Vinod. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there are eyewitnesses to the incident, the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to throwing chilli powder towards the deceased. According to him, accused No.3 Kashabai, who had hold the deceased enabling accused No.1 to give knife blow, is also released on bail. As per his submissions, there may be possibility of scaling down of the offence of murder to the extent of this applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody for considerable period the last three years, and therefore, considering the limited role attributed to the applicant and the prolonged period of incarceration, the applicant can be released on bail. 5. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, contending that there is cogent evidence of eyewitnesses, whose versions consistently corroborate each other with regard to the criminal acts committed by (3) Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt the applicant and the other accused. According to the learned A.P.P., though the role attributed to the present applicant is limited for throwing the chilli powder, but it facilitated accused No.1 in inflicting the fatal knife blow on the chest of the deceased. It is submitted that the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates that he shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, Vinod. As such, the learned A.P.P. prayed for rejection of the bail application. 6. Upon perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment, it is evident that the allegation against the present applicant is that he threw chilli powder in the eyes of of the deceased, thereby enabling accused No.1 to inflict a knife blow on his chest. However, the fact remains that it was accused No.1 who actually inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased. 7. To attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the intention to cause death is a vital ingredient. Under such circumstances, it is yet to be seen from the evidence on record as to whether the applicant was also having intention to kill the deceased. Prima facie, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be confined in throwing chilli powder at the time of the incident. Therefore, there is a possibility that so far as the present applicant is concerned, the offence may ultimately be scaled down from that of murder. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has already undergone (4) Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt incarceration for considerable period and there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in the near future. Further, accused No.3 Kashabai, who had performed more serious role than this applicant, is also released on bail during the pendency of this appeal vide order dated 31.07.2026 by this Court. In these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the role attributed to the applicant in the alleged crime, , we are of the opinion that he can be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. In view of the same, we pass following order. ORDER (A) The application is allowed. (B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon the applicant/accused Pintu @ Ankush Baliram Rathod in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024 under judgment and order dated 13.03.2026 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed, District : Nanded, is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal. (C) The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. (D) The application is accordingly disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Ysk/ (5) Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt