25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2744 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2025 Zakir Siraj Irani ... Applicant/Appellant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent Ms. Apeksha Vora, for Applicant. Smt. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. In fact, this is a second application for suspension of sentence. First Application, being IA No.4349 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2025, was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 24 February 2026. 3. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, on account of change in circumstances, the Applicant has preferred this Application. It was submitted that, the co-convict Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal by this court by an order dated 6 August 2026. As the applicant is similarly circumstanced, the applicant also SSP 1/5 2026:BHC-AS:37675 25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. By a judgment and order dated 9 October 2025, in MCOC Special Case No.158 of 2021, the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, has convicted the Applicant (A1) and the co-accused Sonu Ananta Jadhav (A2) for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 506(2), read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act, 1999”) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of five years on each count, for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, and for an offence punishable under Section 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. 5. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-; for an offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Penal Code, fine of Rs.5,000/- and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, on each count. The aggregate amount of fine comes to Rs.15,30,000/-. 6. The applicant has been in custody since 10 November 2020. As the learned Special Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, the Applicant has already undergone the substantive sentence SSP 2/5 25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc on each count. However, since the Applicant could not deposit the fine, the Applicant is undergoing the default sentence. 7. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the aggregate amount of fine is Rs.15,30,000/- and on account of poor financial condition, the Applicant could not deposit such huge fine amount, and, therefore, despite having undergone the entire substantive sentence, the Applicant is still languishing in prison. The Applicant has already undergone 10 months of sentence in default of payment of fine. Therefore, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned APP countered the submissions on behalf of the Applicant. It was urged that, as this Court has already declined the prayer to suspend the sentence of fine, which has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of MCOC Act, 1999, the instant application also deserves to be rejected. 9. Evidently, the applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence. In addition, the Applicant has suffered 10 months of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. In strict sense, the sentence in default of payment of fine is not in the nature of punishment. It is true, the learned Special Judge has imposed the minimum fine prescribed under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999. However, the quantum of imprisonment in default of sentence of fine is a matter which warrants consideration, at the final adjudication of the appeal. SSP 3/5 25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc 10. In a situation of the present nature, the Appellate Court is not denuded of the power to suspend the sentence of fine. A useful reference in the context can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendera Kumar Mehra V/s. State of Jharkhand1 and Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Ashok Sirpal2. 11. As the Applicant has undergone the entire substantive sentence and 10 months imprisonment in default of payment of fine and the co-convict has already been enlarged on bail, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Applicant on bail, during the pendency of the appeal. 12. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The Application stands allowed. (ii) The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Special Judge in MCOC Special Case No. 158/2021, arising out of CR No. 827/2020 registered with Dindoshi Police Station, stands suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. (iii) The Applicant - Zakir Siraj Irani be enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. 1 (2018) 15 SCC 139 2 2024 SCC Online SC 3036 SSP 4/5 25 ia 2744 of 2026.doc (iv) The Applicant shall mark his presence at Dindoshi Police Station, on the first Monday of March and September every year, till the disposal of the appeal. (v) The Applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the fine in the trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today. (vi) The Applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal, as and when directed. The application stands disposed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 5/5 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/09/2026 16:32:25