Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ganesh Devidas Shinde Alias Ganya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 July, 2026
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4388/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-04-2021
in CRA No. 498/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]
GANESH DEVIDAS SHINDE ALIAS GANYA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 64789/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & IA No. 64790/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Nasir Ahmed Khan, Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Anurag Gharote, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.498 of
Signature Not Verified
2014, by which the appeal preferred by the appellant and other
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.07.13
18:03:58 IST
Reason:
co-convicts came to be partly allowed.
4. The operative part of the Order passed by the High Court reads
thus:
2
“1. The appeals are partly allowed.
2. The conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1 to 5 are
modified as follows –
a) Instead of convicting the accused under Sections 386, 364
read with Section 120B of IPC, they are convicted for the
offence under Sections 364, 386 read with section 34 of the
IPC.
b) Conviction of accused no.l under section B23 of IPC is
maintained.
c) The sentence of accused no.l for all the offences is
maintained.
d) The sentence of accused nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under
Section 364 of IPC is altered from life imprisonment to
period already undergone.
e) The conviction and sentence of accused nos. 2 to 5 is
maintained for the offence under section 386 of IPC.
f) The sentence of fine is maintained and the default sentence
to run consecutively.
3. The conviction of accused nos. 1 to 5 for offence under section
3(1) (ii) of MCOC is maintained.
(a) The substantive sentence of accused no.l for offence under
section 3(1)(ii) of MGOG is maintained.
(b) The substantive: sentence: of accused no.2 is altered from
life imprisonment to period already undergone by them.
(c) The default sentence due to non payment of fine of
Rs. 5,00,000/- is reduced to three years RI instead of four years
for accused nos. 1 to 5.
4. The conviction of accused nos.l to. 5 for the offence,
punishable under section 3 (1)(4) of MCOC is set side
(a) Fine paid if any be returned to them individually.
5. The order to pay compensation of Rs. 6 lakh to the complainant
from the fine amount is set aside.
6. The conviction of accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable
under Section 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act is set
aside.
3
(a) Fine paid if any be returned to them.
7. Except with above variation, the order of conviction and
sentence is maintained.
8. All pending applications are disposed of.
9. All appeals are disposed of in the light aboye directions.”
5. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, is here before us.
6. We heard Mr. Nasir Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant – convict and Mr. Anurag Gharote, the learned counsel
appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
7. Leave has already been granted in this matter. We shall hear
the main appeal finally as and when it comes up for hearing.
8. However, today we heard the learned counsel on release of the
appellant on bail, pending the final disposal of the appeal, before
us.
9. We take notice of the fact that sufficient time was granted to
the State to file its counter. However, till this point of time,
the State has not bothered to file any reply. Be that as it may, we
take notice of the fact that the convict is in jail past 18 years.
10. Having regard to the long incarceration, we are persuaded to
suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
and order release of the appellant – convict on bail.
11. We order that the substantive order of sentence passed by the
trial court shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the
appeal before us and he be released on bail, subject to terms and
conditions that the Trial Court may deem fit to impose.
12. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the State
brought to our notice that the appellant – convict has few other
prosecutions also on his head. The learned counsel appearing for
the convict clarified that he is on bail in connection with all
those cases and in some of the cases, he has been actually
discharged.
13. If the State wants a particular condition to be imposed having
regard to the background of the appellant – convict, it shall be
4
open for the State to make a request in this regard to the trial
court.
14. With the aforesaid, we close this issue of bail.
15. Let the main matter, i.e. the Criminal Appeal, come up for
hearing after eight weeks.
16. Registry shall call for the record and proceedings of the case
from the trial court in both forms, physical and digital. The
digital copy of the record shall be provided to both the learned
counsel at the earliest.
17. By the next date of hearing, we expect the State at least to
file a reply as regards the overall conduct of the appellant –
convict in the last 18 years.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
