Bombay High Court
Atmaram Digambar Garud vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 August, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 40.ia-1339-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1339 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.428 OF 2022
Atmaram Digambar Garud ..... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Nikhil Wadikar, Advocate a/w. Faiza Shaikh, for the
Applicant.
Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sanjog S. Parab, Advocate a/w. Sulabha V. Rane, Mohan
Rao, for the Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail during pendency of
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2022.08.12
10:17:44 +0530
Criminal Appeal No.428/2022. The applicant was convicted
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 5(n),
5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and
under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The applicant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 40.ia-1339-22.odt
years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence
punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(n), 5(l), 5(j)
(ii) of the POCSO Act. He was convicted and sentenced
under Section 506 of IPC for one year R.I. No separate
sentence was imposed under Section 376 of IPC in view of
the sentence imposed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Heard Shri Nikhil Wadikar, learned counsel for
the applicant, Shri R.M. Pethe, learned APP for the
Respondent No.1-State and Shri Sanjog Parab, learned senior
counsel for the Respondent No.2.
4. The prosecution case is that the date of birth of
the victim was 9.11.2002. The date of incident, as
mentioned by the victim in her deposition, was somewhere
in the year 2017. Therefore, at that point of time, she was
below sixteen years of age.
5. The victim is examined as PW-1 during trial. She
has deposed that the applicant was her cousin. The
deposition mentions that at least on three occasions in
2 of 4
:3: 40.ia-1339-22.odt
September, October and November, 2017 he had committed
rape on the victim against her will. His act resulted into her
pregnancy and she delivered a baby boy in April, 2018.
When her pregnancy was detected, the offence was
registered and the applicant was arrested. The investigation
was carried out. During trial, the victim was the main
witness.
6. Apart from that, there is evidence of school
record. The bonafide certificate from the school record
confirmed her date of birth. The radio-logical examination
also divulged that the victim was below sixteen years of age
at the time of incident.
7. The impugned judgment shows the D.N.A. report
produced on record at Exhibits-7 & 8 mentioning that the
victim and the applicant were the biological parents of the
new born baby of the victim. Thus, there is clinching
evidence against the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the original birth certificate of the victim was not produced.
3 of 4
:4: 40.ia-1339-22.odt
The school record is not reliable. The dates mentioned by
the victim in her deposition and her actual pregnancy do not
match.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well
as learned APP for the State opposed this application.
10. I have considered these submissions. In view of
the clinching nature of evidence against the applicant and
the length of sentence imposed on him, no case for grant of
bail during pendency of appeal is made out. Hence, the
application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
