##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57637

906-ia-4804-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4804 OF 2025

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2022

Tatyasaheb Jagannath Mane …Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Sr. Adv. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, a/w Mr. Abhishek Kanchikar, Mr. Sujay

Shingade, Mr. Mayur Tamore, Mr. Himanshu Indise i/b Adv. Pravada

Raut, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE : 24.12.2025.

P.C. :

1. By this application the applicant seeks suspension/stay

of conviction during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 79 of

2022 filed by him and other co-accused against the judgment and

order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in

Sessions Case No. 458 of 2019 by which the learned Additional

Sessions Judge has convicted the present applicant along with

other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 332

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are

further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

They are further convicted for the offence punishable under

Pramod S.Lakare

1/4

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 18:56:14 :::

906-ia-4804-2025.doc

Section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are

directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the

applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent/State.

3. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits

that the applicant intends to contest the Municipal Corporation

Election. It is submitted that by order dated 21.10.2024 in Interim

Application No. 2966 of 2024, this Court has suspended the

conviction of one of the appellants in the present appeal, namely

Sadanand Tharwal, against whom similar allegations are made.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrakant Vs.

State of Maharashtra¹. has held that if the conviction of one of

the co-accused is suspended then the other co-accused are

entitled to the same treatment.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-

State submits that considering the nature of crime i.e. the assault

on public servant, the conviction may not be suspended.

6. I have perused the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by

this Court in Interim Application No.2966 of 2024. Paragraph No.8

1 S.L.P(Criminal) 1360 of 2022 along with connected appeal decided on 15.12.2022.

Pramod S.Lakare

2/4

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 18:56:14 :::

906-ia-4804-2025.doc

of the said order reads thus :

“8. Considering evidence on record, I am

inclined to allow the application. The applicant

wants to contest the Assembly Election. Surely,

grant of stay to conviction is not, by way of right,

or it is not a rule, but it has to be resorted in

rarest of rare case and since the applicant has

made out one such case, on appreciating the

evidence placed on record before the trial Court,

the applicant is entitled for suspension of

conviction imposed upon him.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chandrakant

vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), has observed thus:

“However, it is to be noted that in the case of co-

accused against whom similar allegations are being

made, the Division Bench of the same High Court by

judgment and order dated 27.01.2020 has allowed the

application and suspended the conviction.

Though, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned

counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra has

vehemently opposed the appeal(s), we find that the

present appellant(s) are also entitled to the same

treatment as granted to the co-accused by the High

Court vide order dated 27.01.2020”.

8. In view of the