Bombay High Court
Amol Nagnath Sirsat And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239 OF 2021
1. Amol Nagnath Sirsat
and Anr. = APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT/S
-----
Mr.SG Chapalgaonkar,Advocate for Applicants;
Mr.AM Phule,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 6th May, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard Shri SG Chapalgaonkar, learned
Advocate for applicants; and Shri AM Phule, learned
APP appearing for Respondent-State.
2. In this Criminal Application, the
applicants pray for suspension of substantive
sentence and releasing them on bail during pendency
and final hearing of the Criminal Appeal.
3. The applicants are the original accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Special (POCSO) Case No.34/2018,
who have been convicted and sentenced by learned
Special Judge (POCSO) Parbhani vide judgment and
order dated 20.3.2021, thus -
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 15:05:15 :::
(2)
a) For the offence punishable under
Section 8 of POCSO Act read with 34 of
IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for
three years and to pay fine of Rs.
5,000/- each, in default, R.I. for six
months.
b) On realization of the fine amount, it
is ordered to be paid to the victim.
4. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicants that the entire prosecution case is
based on testimonies of PW 2 - the victim and PW 3
- uncle of the victim. Their evidence is not
consistent with each other. There are several
admissions, contradictions and omissions surfaced
during the cross examination. The prosecution
evidence is doubtful. No other independent
evidence is available on record, by which the
applicants can be connected with the alleged
offence. The learned Special Judge has misread and
misconstrued the evidence brought on record and
erred in convicting and sentencing the applicants.
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the
charges levelled against the applicant/s by a
cogent and reliable evidence on record and the
conviction is not sustainable in law and facts of
the case. The applicants were on bail during the
trial and have also deposited the fine amount. They
are falsely implicated in the alleged crime. They
would abide by the terms of the bail. The learned
Advocate further submits that the appeal involves
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 15:05:15 :::
(3)
other legal points/issues, which the
applicants/appellants intend to agitate and address
them at the time of final hearing of the appeal and
they have every hope of success in the appeal.
Consequently, the applicants pray for releasing
them on bail by suspending the substantive sentence
awarded by the learned Special Judge on such terms
and conditions as this Court may deem fit and
proper.
5. Per contra, learned APP vociferously
resisted the application and supported the reasons
assigned by the learned Special Judge while
convicting and imposing the sentence against the
applicants. The learned Special Judge has properly
scanned and scrutinized the evidence brought on
record. It is, therefore, submitted that the
application being sans merit, deserves to be
dismissed and it be dismissed accordingly.
6. As it appears from the impugned judgment
of the learned Special Judge, particularly the
sentence, that has been awarded against the
applicants for the offence, is a short-term
sentence. In view of the decision in the case of
Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. - (2001) 9 SCC 211,
benefit will have to be extended to the applicants-
appellants when they have demonstrated that the
material and significant points, raised by them in
the appeal, are required to be considered at the
time of final hearing of the appeal. Further, the
applicants were on bail during the trial, they have
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 15:05:15 :::
(4)
not misused their liberty and had also deposited
the fine amount. In view of the matter, it can be
said that a case is definitely made out for
releasing the applicants on bail by suspending the
substantive sentence during pendency and final
disposal of the appeal. Hence, following order,-
ORDER
i. The Criminal Application stands
allowed.
ii. The substantive sentence imposed
on the applicants by learned Special
Judge (POCSO) Parbhani, vide judgment and
order dated 20.3.2021, in Special (POCSO)
Case No.34/2018, is hereby suspended till
hearing and final disposal of the appeal.
iii. The applicants - 1) Amol s/o
Nagnath Sirsat; and 2) Amol Vidhyadhar
Suradkar, be released on their executing
PR and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) each.
iv. The applicants shall not commit
any criminal activity.
v. The applicants shall remain
present before the learned Trial Judge
once in six months, till final hearing
and disposal of the appeal, commencing
from the date they tender bail papers
and, thereafter, the Trial Judge to fix
dates for their subsequent appearances.
vi. In case of two consecutive
defaults on the part of the applicants to
remain present before the Sessions Court,
the Sessions Court to inform this Court
about the same and in that eventuality,
the prosecution would be at liberty to
file an application for cancellation of
the bail granted to the applicants.
vii. Bail before the Sessions Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
