APPA/801/2026 of VINAYAK SHAMRAO ANOLE AND 2 OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO, PS, DESAIGANJ, TQ. DESAIGANJ, DIST. GADCHIROLI AND ANOTHER on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.801/2026

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.358/2024

Vinayak Shamrao Anole and others

...Versus…

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, P.S. Desaiganj, Tah. –

Desaiganj District Gadchiroli and another Applicant : Shamrao S/o Soma Anole

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for respondent No.1/State 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 r/w Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

2.

The applicant is accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.87/2017. He has been convicted vide judgment and order dated 21/05/2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No.87/2017 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for 2026:BHC-NAG:13948-DB

the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The applicant is in jail since 24/08/2017. He is presently around 65 years of age.

3.

Three persons were arrayed as accused including the present applicant. The learned Sessions Court has convicted all the three accused persons for the aforesaid offences. This Court vide order dated 28/08/2026 passed in Criminal Application No.1235/2024 suspended execution of sentence passed against the appellant No.3 - Raju Hariji Dhore and ordered to release him on bail.

4.

It is further submitted that vide order dated 19/08/2024 passed in Criminal Application No.634/2024

execution of substantive sentence passed against the appellant No.1- Vinayak Shamrao Anole is also suspended and he is also ordered to be released on bail. It is contended that the applicant is a senior citizen, who is aged around 65 years of age and he is behind bars for a period of around 9 years and two months. The contention of learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant No.2 is that in view of the aforesaid orders, similar relief should be granted to the present applicant applying principle of parity.

5.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State opposes the application and submits that there is ample evidence against the applicant; all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the case of the

prosecution; there is involvement of the present applicant in commission of crime with other co-accused; there is a direct evidence against the accused in the form of eyewitnesses; the learned Sessions Court has rightly convicted the applicant and therefore he is not entitled for release on bail. Hence, the sentence imposed upon the applicant by the learned Sessions Court be maintained and the application for suspension of sentence be rejected.

6.

Perusal of the order dated 19/08/2024 will demonstrate that while suspending the sentence qua appellant No.3 – Vinayak Shamrao Anole, this Court has found that statement about presence of the said accused was made by PW - 6 without attributing any specific role to him. It is further observed that PW - 5 did not even speak about his presence.

This Court has recorded that allegations of assault are made against the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 - Shamrao Soma Anole, who is the present applicant. Perusal of the judgment will indicate that the allegation against the appellant No.1 is that he assaulted the victim with a spade and the allegation against the present applicant/appellant No.2 is that he had assaulted the deceased with iron rod. Perusal of paragraph No.22 of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court will demonstrate that a finding is recorded that whereas appellant No.1 was assaulting the deceased with spade, the present applicant/appellant No.2 was assaulting the deceased by means of iron rod. Perusal of findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court will demonstrate that role attributed to the appellant No.1 and present applicant –

appellant No.2 is similar although the weapon used by them is different. The appellant No.1 is already on bail.

7.

In view of the aforesaid, having regard to the fact that the applicant/appellant No.2 is around 65 years old, he is behind bars for a period of around 9 years and 2 months and the co-accused against whom similar allegations are made is already ordered to be released on bail, it will be appropriate to allow the present application by ordering suspension of sentence and release the applicant/appellant No.2 on bail.

Hence, the following order is passed : -