Bombay High Court
[email protected] Mahadev Nikam vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Makarand Subhash Karnik
1/3 50-APEALST-2520-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 2520 OF 2020
Sagar @ Sandip Mahadev Nikam ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Vaibhav Ugle i/b. Mr. B.S. Shinde for Appellant.
Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware for Respondent No. 2.
Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 04, 2021.
P.C.:
1. This appeal takes an exception to the order of rejection of bail
application in Special Child Case No. 134 of 2019 dated 06.07.2020 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant invites our attention
to the impugned order and submits that for legally unsustainable reasons the
appeal of the appellant has been turned down. The appellant is in jail since 17
months. He further invites our attention to the medical report and submits
that, to the statement of the victim there is no corroboration of the medical
evidence and all the allegations are concocted. He submits that the
Bhagyawant Punde
2/3 50-APEALST-2520-2020.doc
ingredients of the alleged offences under the POCSO Act are not attracted,
therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned APP relying upon the statement of
victim, so also other witnesses and other material collected during the course
of investigation submits that the ingredients of Section 7, 8 and 10 of the
POCSO, Act are attracted, so also ingredients of Section 354 of IPC and
other alleged offences under IPC gets attracted and consequently alleged
offences are disclosed and therefore, this is not a fit case for releasing the
appellant on bail.
4. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions. With
able assistance of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned
APP, we have perused the allegations in the FIR and also statement of the
victim who was admittedly below 12 years of age at the time of alleged
incident; we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the
appellant. The statement of the victim makes it abundantly clear that the
appellant overpowered the child victim and attempted to commit the sexual
assault and when the witnesses saw him at the spot, he ran away. From the
statement of victim so also other material collected during the course of
investigation, we are of the prima facie opinion that the ingredients of
Section 7, 8, 9 and 10 of POCSO Act, are attracted.
Bhagyawant Punde
3/3 50-APEALST-2520-2020.doc
5. It is true that, by this time the trial should have been
commenced, however, due to spread of Covid-19 virus the court working was
interrupted, and as a result the trial could not commence. However, now the
concerned Court can proceed with trial. Accordingly, we direct the Additional
Sessions Judge, Baramati to expedite the trial in Special Child Case No. 134
of 2019 and take it to the logical end and pronounce the final judgment/order
within eight months from today. Needless to observe that, the appellant shall
extend full co-operation for speedy disposal of the trial. The State shall
produce the witnesses on the dates fixed by the concerned Court for trial.
6. For the reasons stated in Para 4 of this order, we are not inclined
to entertain this appeal except aforesaid directions issued to the concerned
Court to expedite the trial in Special Child Case No. 134 of 2019.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and same stands dismissed.
7. The observations made herein above are pirma facie in nature
and confined to the adjudication of the present appeal only. The concerned
court shall not get influenced by the said observations during the course of
trial.
( M. S. KARNIK, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
