Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8050 (BOM)

anita dixit v. the state of maharashtra

IA/3238/2026 · 2026-09-11

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

502-IA-3238-2026(CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3238 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 484 OF 2026 Anita Dixit … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Prashant Pandey along with Mr. Dinesh Jadhvani, Ms. Neha Balani, Ms. Riddhima Mangaonkar, Mr. Mahesh Patil, Ms. Simran Wadekar and Mr. Yugam Lakkad i/b. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, , Advocate for Respondent No.1-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. By this application, the applicant is seeking suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of revision. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane, vide judgment and order dated 27th September, 2019 for offence punishable under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Learned counsel further submitted that the said conviction is confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by judgment and order dated 7th SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.11 18:41:20 +0530 502-IA-3238-2026(CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam September, 2026. The applicant is behind bars. During the trial, the applicant was on bail and she has not misused the liberty. Hence, requested to allow the application. 3. Learned APP for respondent-State strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that if applicant is released on bail, she may abscond and requested to reject the application. 4. I have heard both learned counsel. 5. The sentence imposed on applicants is short term sentence. During the trial, the applicant was on bail and she has not misused the liberty. It may take time to dispose of the revision. 6. In view of above, the applicant’s sentence is suspended and she be enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision, on the following terms and conditions. ORDER 1. The applicant be released on cash bail of Rs.15,000/- on executing PR bond of the same amount. 2. The applicant shall furnish surety of the same amount within two months on release from jail. The interim application is allowed in above terms. 7. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)