APPA/604/2026 of RENU ALIAS GANGA MAHESHWARIDIN PANDA ALIAS PANDE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR, PSO, PS, NEW M.I. D.C . NAGPUR. on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.604/2026

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.415/2026

Ranu @ Ganga Maheshwaridin Panda @ Pande

...Versus…

The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Police Station, New M.I.D.C., Nagpur

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. A.C. Jaltare h/f Mr. C.R. Thakur, Advocates for applicant Mr. A.R. Chutke, APP for respondent CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE AND

ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 16/10/2026

P.C.

1.

The present application is filed under Section 430

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

2.

The applicant, who is accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.58/2025 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment and order dated 18/04/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.58/2025 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and to suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under 2026:BHC-NAG:13949-DB

Section 144 of IPC, two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC, two years for the offence punishable Section 148 of IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC.

3.

The applicant-accused No.3 is in jail from 22/08/2024. The accused No.1 – Raj Anil Patil has filed Criminal Appeal No.230/2026 challenging the said judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Court.

Vide order dated 17/07/2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.347/2026, substantive sentence against him is ordered to be suspended and accordingly he is ordered to be released on bail upon executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

4.

The learned Advocate for the applicant states that the learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the present applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant contends that the principal offender is the accused No.1, who is already released on bail granted by this Court. Learned Advocate contends that in view of the aforesaid, the present applicant should also be ordered to be released on bail by suspending the sentence.

5.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the application contending that there is a positive evidence against the present applicant, which indicates that a few minutes before the incident, applicant had called deceased and the deceased had left his house and reached the spot of incident upon receiving cellphone call from the applicant. It is contended that the presence of the applicant on the spot of incident is also

established. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that in the light of positive evidence against the present applicant that he had called the deceased to the spot of incident, it will not be appropriate to suspend the sentence and release him on bail.

6.

I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court. Indeed, there is a reference to CDRs of the present applicant and that of the deceased which indicate that the applicant had made calls to the deceased shortly before the fateful event occurred. The mother of deceased (PW-5) also stated that the deceased left the house upon receiving call from the applicant.

7.

Perusal of findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court will demonstrate that the deceased had suffered blows by sharp weapon on his vital parts. Three weapons i.e. knife, Chopper (Koyata) and metallic cylindrical pipe have been seized by the prosecution. The weapons are recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Discovery of iron rod and Chopper (Koyata) is on the basis of statement of the accused No.1. The knife is recovered at the instance of accused No.2, who is acquitted. There is no recovery from the present applicant/accused No.3. More importantly, the eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution case. As per the prosecution story, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused No.1 - Raj Anil Patil in relation to a girl, which led to commission of offence.

8.

As stated above, the substantive sentence against the accused No.1 is suspended by this Court vide order dated 17/07/2026. Perusal of the order passed by this Court will

demonstrate that the fact that eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution story has weighed with this Court in passing the order of suspension of sentence. This Court has observed that the eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) did not support the prosecution case and therefore, although there is discovery on behalf of the accused No.1 (applicant in the said application), it cannot be said that the appellant therein/accused No.1 did not have fair chance of succeeding in the appeal. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the present applicant is on a better footing, since there is no discovery of weapon at his behest. In view of the above, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed and is allowed in the following terms :-