The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a convict serving a life sentence after finding the prosecution’s evidence of his involvement in a fatal stabbing to be unreliable and inconclusive. The judgment underscores that where eyewitness identification is doubtful and the accused has already been on bail for a substantial portion of the trial, suspension of sentence pending appeal is warranted to prevent undue hardship.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sagar Santosh Dongare, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Ashish Kendre, who was fatally stabbed on 19.06.2018 at approximately 9:00 p.m. in Udgir, Maharashtra. The prosecution alleged that Dongare, along with co-accused Sainath Ingalewad, assaulted Ashish after a dispute over an unpaid loan of Rs. 25,000. While Sainath inflicted the fatal knife wounds to Ashish’s stomach, Dongare was accused of holding Ashish’s body to enable the attack.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Ashish Kendre, was the son of informant Dnyanoba Pundlikrao Kendre (P.W.1)
- P.W.2 Dhiraj Tandale, a neighbour, witnessed the incident and testified that Sainath attacked Ashish with a knife
- P.W.1 claimed Dongare held Ashish during the assault, but admitted prior acquaintance with Dongare
- Both eyewitnesses failed to identify Dongare in the Test Identification Parade (TIP)
- P.W.2 stated he did not know Dongare and could not confirm his identity during the incident
- P.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that he shouted for help after being injured by Sainath, and only after others arrived did he observe the full scene
- The prosecution did not produce any forensic, circumstantial, or mobile evidence linking Dongare to the crime
- Dongare was arrested on 20.06.2018 and remained in custody until 22.05.2022
- From 22.05.2022 to 06.07.2022, he was released on Covid-19 bail
- He was granted regular bail from 07.07.2022 until his conviction on 12.09.2025
Procedural History
- 19.06.2018: Incident occurred at Udgir, Maharashtra
- 20.06.2018: Sagar Santosh Dongare arrested
- 12.09.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, convicted Dongare under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment
- 12.09.2025: Conviction and sentencing order passed
- 13.09.2025: Appeal filed before Bombay High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2025)
- 12.03.2026: Criminal Application No. 3949 of 2025 filed seeking suspension of sentence and bail
- 13.03.2026: Judgment pronounced granting bail pending appeal
Relief Sought
The applicant sought suspension of his life sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his appeal, arguing that the evidence against him was unreliable and that he had already been on bail for over three years during trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether suspension of a life sentence under Section 389 CrPC is justified when eyewitness identification is inconsistent, the accused was on bail for a substantial period during trial, and the prosecution’s case rests on doubtful testimony.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel contended that the prosecution failed to establish Dongare’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt. He emphasized that both eyewitnesses failed to identify Dongare in the TIP, despite P.W.1 knowing him prior to the incident. P.W.2, who was not acquainted with Dongare, could not confirm his presence at the scene. The counsel argued that the Trial Court’s conviction was based on speculation, not evidence, and that the applicant’s prolonged pre-trial and trial-period bail demonstrated no flight risk or threat to public order.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Pleader and counsel for the informant argued that Dongare played a crucial role in the murder by restraining the victim, enabling the fatal attack. They contended that the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the gravity of the offence - murder - warranted continued incarceration. They also noted that Dongare had been in custody for nearly four years and that suspension of sentence would undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, particularly the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It noted that while P.W.1 claimed Dongare held the deceased, his failure to identify him in the TIP severely undermined his credibility. P.W.2, who had no prior knowledge of Dongare, explicitly stated he could not identify the person who held the victim. The Court observed that the absence of any corroborative evidence - forensic, digital, or otherwise - rendered the prosecution’s case speculative.
"Considering these evidence on record, the presence of the applicant on the spot of incident appears to be doubtful."
The Court further highlighted that Dongare had been on bail for over three years during the trial period, including during the Covid-19 period and subsequent regular bail. This demonstrated his compliance with judicial process and absence of risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. The Court emphasized that suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC is not contingent solely on the gravity of the offence but must be balanced against the likelihood of success on appeal and the accused’s conduct during trial.
The Court distinguished this case from those where the accused was continuously in custody, noting that prolonged pre-conviction release weighs heavily in favour of bail pending appeal. It held that the conviction, while formally valid, rested on evidence so tenuous that the appeal had a substantial chance of success.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Bombay High Court suspended his life sentence pending appeal and ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount. The Court explicitly clarified that this order has no bearing on the merits of the appeal. The applicant was directed to appear before the court as required and not to leave his place of residence without permission.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Doubtful Identification Undermines Conviction
- Practitioners must aggressively challenge eyewitness identification where TIP fails, even if the witness claims prior acquaintance
- Failure to identify in TIP, especially by neutral witnesses, creates reasonable doubt that cannot be ignored
- Courts must not rely on vague assertions of involvement without corroboration
Pre-Trial Bail Supports Suspension of Sentence
- Continuous bail during trial, including during pandemic-related releases, is a strong indicator of non-fleeing risk
- Courts should not penalize accused for compliance with bail conditions
- Suspension under Section 389 CrPC is not a privilege but a safeguard against prolonged incarceration pending appeal
Gravity Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
- The seriousness of the offence (e.g., murder) does not automatically override the accused’s right to liberty during appeal
- The Court must assess the strength of the appeal’s merits and the accused’s conduct, not merely the nature of the crime
- This judgment reinforces that bail pending appeal is a procedural right, not a reward for leniency
