Tukaram Sadanand Palav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3087 Bom

Nisha S.   Digitally signed by
           Nisha S. Chitnis

Chitnis    Date: 2021.02.18
           11:28:07 +0530




                                                         1/5                          7-appa.1151.2019.doc



    nsc.
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1151 OF 2019
                                                        IN
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.455 OF 2019


                            Tukaram Sadanand Palav                           ...Applicant
                                Versus
                            The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                    ...Respondents

                            Mr. Salim Ahmed Shaikh, for the Applicant.

                            Ms. S. V. Sonawane, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1 - State.


                                                       CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
                                                       DATE :   16th FEBRUARY, 2021

                           P.C. :


                           1.           Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                            2.          By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his

                            sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal

                            of the aforesaid appeal.



                            3.          The applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 17th January

                            2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court,
                               2/5                        7-appa.1151.2019.doc


Greater Mumbai, in POCSO Special Case No.538 of 2015,              has been

convicted and sentenced as under:-

-     for the   offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of

Chidren from Sexual Offences Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10

years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, to

suffer further simple imprisonment for 6 months ;

-     for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal

Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple

imprisonment for 1 month.

       Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently


4.          Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

in custody for almost more than 5 ½ years i.e. since 26 th August 2015 and

that the appeal is not likely to come up for the hearing in the immediate

near future. He submits that a perusal of the evidence on record will show

that the relations, if any, between the applicant and the prosecutrix were

consensual in nature. He submits that the prosecution has not proved that

the prosecutrix was a minor i.e. 17 years 8 months, at the relevant time. He

submits that the prosecutrix herself has disclosed her age as 19 years to the

doctor, when she had gone for her medical examination in connection with
                               3/5                        7-appa.1151.2019.doc


her pregnancy. He submits that the evidence on record will show that the

prosecutrix would call the applicant home and that the relations were

consensual. He further submits that the evidence also shows that the

applicant and the prosecutrix were going to get married, however, as the

applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix, a complaint/FIR was lodged as

against the applicant.


5.           Learned APP opposes the application.


6.           Perused the papers. The aforesaid appeal has been admitted on

23rd April 2019. The evidence on record shows that there was some

relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The evidence of PW

3 - Dr. Bhavin Desai shows that the prosecutrix had disclosed her age as 19

years, when she was admitted in the Nursing Home and had also disclosed

her name as 'X' Tukaram Palav. It also appears that the applicant and the

prosecutrix had disclosed that they were married when they visited the

Nursing Home. The applicant is in custody since 26 th August 2015 for more

than 5 ½ years.    The applicant has no antecedents. The Appeal       is not

likely to come up for the hearing in the immediate near future.
                                  4/5                       7-appa.1151.2019.doc


 7.              Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the

 applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the

 hearing and final disposal of his Appeal, on the following terms and

 conditions :-

                                       ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in

the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three

months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his Appeal is finally

disposed of;

iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of current

address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile

details, if any, from time to time;

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the

trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the

prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation

of bail;

                              5/5                         7-appa.1151.2019.doc




v)          The fine amount to be deposited by the applicant, within 12

weeks from today.

8. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is

accordingly disposed of.

9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.