Shailesh Shivram Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 12197 Bom

                     rpa                               1/5                 29 ia 1184 2020 2020.doc


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1184 OF 2020
                                                    IN
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.386 OF 2020


                     Shailesh Shivram Jadhav                        .. Applicant/ Appellant
                              Versus
                     State of Maharashtra and Anr.                  .. Respondents

                                                  ......
                     Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
                     Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent No.1- State.
                     Ms.Drishti H. Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                   ......

                                                        CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                                                        DATED : AUGUST 31, 2021.

                     P.C. :

                                     This is an application for suspension of sentence and

                     grant     of    bail   pending   Appeal   preferred   by   the    applicant

                     challenging the judgment and order dated 17 th February, 2020,

                     passed by learned Special Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.4

                     of 2016.



                     2               The applicant has been convicted for the ofences
        Digitally
        signed by
        RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
                     punishable under Sections 377, 506 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC",
AHER     Date:
        2021.09.03
        14:25:58
        +0530
 rpa                           2/5                29 ia 1184 2020 2020.doc


for short) and Sections 3 read with 4 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Ofences Act ("POCSO", for short). He has been

sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and

two years.



3            The case of the prosecution is that the victim is boy

aged about 16 years was subjected to unnatural sexual ofence by

the applicant-accused. On     9th August, 2015, similar acs were

repeated after two three days. The complaint was lodged with the

concerned police station on 30th September, 2015. Thereafter, the

applicant was arrested. Charge-sheet was fled.



4            Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant was on bail during the trial. He has not misused the

facility of bail. He has good case on merits. The appeal is

admitted and pending for fnal hearing. There are discrepancies

in the evidence of the witnesses. The medical evidence does not

support the prosecution case. There is delay in lodging the FIR. It

has been lodged after 50 days from the date of incident. Applicant

is in custody from 17th February, 2020. He is in jail for a period of

1 and ½ year.
 rpa                           3/5                 29 ia 1184 2020 2020.doc


6           Learned APP submitted that the evidence of the

victim establishes the ofence. Specifc overtact has been

attributed to the applicant. The prosecution has been able to

establish the charges against the applicant. The ofence is of

serious nature.



7           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that

there is suficient evidence on record to convict the applicant.

The statements of the victim attributes overtact to the applicant.

There is no reason to discard the evidence of the victim. The CD

of the conversation was prepared. However, the same was not

produced in the Court. The evidence of all the witnesses establish

the ofences against the applicant.



8           FIR has been lodged after a period of about 50 days

from the incident. The medical evidence indicate that there was

no injuries on the person of the victim. The applicant was on bail

during the trial. It is urged by appellant that there are

discrepancies of the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.No.7 medical

oficer has stated that while issuing letter Exhibit - 19, victim was

not referred to her for examination. In case of unnatural ofence

and insertion of private part in anus, grievous injury is possible. If
 rpa                             4/5                    29 ia 1184 2020 2020.doc


such injury is not treated in time, than serious incident is

possible. Witness did not fnd injury on anus of victim. The Appeal

may not come up for hearing within short span of time. He is in

custody from 17th February, 2020. Considering the circumstances,

case for suspension of sentence is made out.



                            :: O R D E R ::

(i) Interim Application No.1184 of 2020, is

allowed;

(ii) During the pendency of Appeal No.396 of 2020,

the sentence of imprisonment awarded vide

impugned judgment and order dated 17th

February, 2020, passed by learned Special

Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No.4 of 2016,

is suspended, and, the applicant is directed to

be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the

sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more local

sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the

sum of Rs.25,000/-, for a period of ten weeks, in

lieu of surety;

rpa 5/5 29 ia 1184 2020 2020.doc

(iv) Applicant shall report the trial Court once in six

months and mark his presence;

(v) Applicant shall stay out of the jurisdiction of

Maruti Ali, Ratnagiri, till further orders;

(vi) Interim Application No.1184 of 2020, stands

disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)