Ravindra Dnyandeo Misal v. State Of Maharashtra

1 / 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2610 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.736 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2612 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.736 OF 2025 Ravindra Dnyandeo Misal .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

.... Respondents .......

• Mr. Pavan Patil a/w Shubham Saraf, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr. Pankaj P. Devkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 23rd JULY, 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is an application for suspension of sentence and bail pending final disposal of the Appeal preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was the accused in Special Case Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2025.07.28 18:02:50 +0530 No.30/2023 before the learned Special Judge, under SC & ST MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Act, Karad.

Nesarikar

2 / 4 (i) The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(ii) The Applicant was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(r)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

Heard Mr. Pavan Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Pankaj P. Devkar, learned APP for the State. 3.

The case pertains to the incident dated 24/05/2023. The gist of the allegations is that the first informant was a Gram Sevak. The Applicant wanted some information regarding the Finance Commission. The Applicant was under the impression that the first informant was deliberately not providing him that information. He abused the informant with reference to his

3 / 4 caste. He forcibly took the proceeding book and tore some pages. He abused and pushed the informant. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged and the investigation was carried out. The deposition of the first informant also supports the prosecution case.

4.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the case is false. The Applicant himself had made a complaint against the first informant and therefore as a counterblast, these false allegations are made against the Applicant. The learned Judge has already acquitted the Applicant from the other charges, meaning thereby that the evidence of P.W.2 was not accepted in its totality. Therefore, there is some doubt about the other part of the evidence of P.W.2.

5.

Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to him, the evidence of P.W.2 is supported by two witnesses. He opposed grant of bail.

6.

I have considered these submissions. The question

4 / 4 raised by the learned counsel for the Applicant will have to be decided at the final hearing stage. However, at this stage, it must be noted that the maximum sentence imposed on the Applicant is only for two years. The Appeal is not likely to be decided within that period. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the fine amount is already paid. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant.

7.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.736 of 2025, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) Both these Interim Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)