Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Harshdeep S/O. Anil Mate vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 28 February, 2019

Author: V.M. Deshpande

Bench: V.M. Deshpande

                                               1                             apeal56.19.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 80/2019
                  IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56/2019
  Harshdeep s/o Anil Mate (In Jail) .vs. The State of Maharashtra through
                             PSO Bhandara.
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions            Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                       Mr. V. D. Muley, Advocate for appellant.
                       Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for respondent.

                       CORAM :           V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
                       DATED :           FEBRUARY 28, 2019


                                        This is an application under Section 389 Code
                       of Criminal Procedure for suspension of substantive jail
                       sentence and for grant of bail.
                                        This criminal appeal arises out of judgment
                       and order dated 31.12.2018 passed by Special Judge
                       (Under POCSO Act), Bhandara in Special (Child)
                       Criminal Case No.17/2017. The said Court below found
                       that the appellant is liable for conviction for an offence
                       under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-D of the Indian Penal
                       Code, Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under
                       Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual
                       Offences Act. For an offence under Section 323 of the
                       IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
                       one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
                       suffer simple imprisonment for one month.                      For an
                       offence under Section 504 of the IPC, he is sentenced to




         ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019                           ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 11:17:26 :::
                                       2                          apeal56.19.odt

              suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a
              fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
              for fifteen days. For an offence under Section 506 of the
              IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
              six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
              suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. For an
              offence under Section 354-D of the IPC, he is sentenced
              to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay
              a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple
              imprisonment for six months.          For an offence under
              Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, he is sentenced to
              suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a
              fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
              imprisonment for three months. For an offence under
              Section 8 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced to suffer
              rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of
              Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
              for three months. All the sentences were directed to run
              concurrently.
                               This appeal was admitted on 06.02.2019 and
              on the said day, consideration of this application was
              deferred till receipt of record and proceedings.
                               Record and proceedings are received. I have
              heard Mr. Muley, learned counsel for the applicant and
              Mr. Ghodeswar, learned A.P.P. for the State. Submission
              of learned counsel for the applicant is that in any case,
              offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is
              not made out at all from plain reading of examination-




::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019                        ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 11:17:26 :::
                                       3                           apeal56.19.odt

              in-chief of the victim herself. Learned A.P.P. also fairly
              submits that at least while considering application for
              bail, it would be difficult to make any further submission
              on the evidence of the victim in respect of the offence
              under the POCOS Act.
                               With assistance of learned counsel for the
              parties, I have gone through evidence of victim (PW1). A
              close look to the examination in chief of the victim shows
              that it was a simple case of assault on her and her father.
              Ingredients of Section 7 of the POCSO Act are not found
              in the evidence of the girl.
                               The applicant was arrested on 13.02.2017
              under arrest panchanama Exh.-69. Pending trial, he was
              released on the next day by learned Additional Sessions
              Judge.
                               It appears that during the pendency of trial,
              the victim girl moved an application for cancellation of
              the bail of the applicant. The said application is at Exh.-
              24 at page no.32 on file 'D' on record of Court below.
              The application shows that after release of the applicant
              on bail on 25.03.2017, her sister filed report against
              applicant and on the basis of which crime was registered
              vide Crime No.188/2017 for an offence punishable
              under Sections 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC and under
              Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Record shows that learned
              Sessions Judge on 07.09.2018 cancelled the bail and
              took the applicant in custody.             Observation of the
              learned Judge while cancelling the bail was that for fair




::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019                         ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 11:17:26 :::
                                       4                          apeal56.19.odt

              trial, applicant must be put behind bars. Accordingly,
              the applicant was taken in custody on 17.09.2018 and
              thereafter evidence of the prosecution commenced on
              10.10.2018 and the last witness which the prosecution
              examined was PW13 on 22.11.2018. After appreciation
              of the prosecution case, the learned Judge has passed the
              impugned judgment. Presently, this Court is considering
              the liberty of the applicant, which is withheld in view of
              imposition of sentence on him. The maximum period of
              sentence is four years.        The applicant is in jail since
              07.09.2018.
                               Prima facie, after examining the evidence of
              the prosecution witness in general and evidence of victim
              in particular, in my view, the applicant has made out a
              case for consideration in his favour. Further, age of the
              appellant is 28 years. Thus, there is every possibility that
              he would be available when the appeal will be taken up
              for final hearing in due course of time.
                               The Hon'ble Apex Court has already observed
              in Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai And Ors vs State Of
              Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, that when the
              sentence is for a fixed duration, the Court should
              consider case of the applicant sympathetically.
                               In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
              Apex Court and in view of quality of evidence brought on
              record, in my view, the applicant has made out a case for
              grant of bail. Hence, I pass the following order.




::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019                        ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 11:17:26 :::
                                                5                            apeal56.19.odt

                                                   ORDER
                       (i)              The application is allowed.
                       (ii)             Substantive jail sentence imposed upon the

applicant by judgment and order dated 31.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (Under POCSO Act), Bhandara in Special (Child) Cri. Case No.17/2017 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal.

(iii) Applicant-Harshdeep s/o Anil Mate, shall be released on bail on he executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

(iv) Bail bonds be executed before Court below.

(v) At the time of execution of bail bonds, the learned Judge shall ensure that fine amount is deposited by applicant.

(vi) The applicant shall mark his presence at Police Station, Bhandara once in every three months and shall maintain a diary showing his presence there, during the pendency of the present appeal.

(vii) The applicant shall remain personally present before this Court at the time of final hearing of appeal.

The application is disposed of.

JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 11:17:26 :::