Bombay High Court
Manish Babarao Shivankar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: G. A. Sanap
1 20.appa.131.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2022
Manish Babarao Shivankar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Rohan Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant
Shri M. J. Khan, APP for the State
Shri R. R. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM : G.A. SANAP J.
DATE : AUGUST 23, 2022.
This is an application for suspension of
substantive sentence awarded by the learned Special
Judge, Bhandara on 29/01/22 in Special (POCSO)
Case No. 41 of 2018. The learned Special Judge
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 354-A(1)(i) and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code (For short 'IPC') and Section 8 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (For short 'POCSO Act'). On both the counts,
the appellant has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for three years. No separate sentence
has been awarded under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the
IPC. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2 20.appa.131.2022.odt
2] The learned Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the fine amount has been deposited.
It is stated that during the course of the trial the
appellant was on bail. The appellant has not
misused the liberty granted to him. The learned
Advocate submits that considering the quantum of
substantive sentence, the learned Special Judge has
suspended the substantive sentence on the date of
the Judgment and Order itself. The learned
Advocate further submits that the appeal may take
its own time to reach the stage of final hearing. He,
therefore, prayed that the substantive sentence may
be suspended.
3] I have heard Mr M. J. Khan, learned APP
for the State as well as Mr. R. R. Prajapati, learned
Advocate for the respondent No.2. It is submitted
on behalf of respondent No.2 that considering the
seriousness of the crime the appeal be taken up for
final hearing.
4] I have gone through the record and
proceedings. Undisputedly, the appellant was on
bail during the pendency of the trial. There is no
grievance that during the pendency of the trial the
appellant misused the liberty. It is undisputed that
3 20.appa.131.2022.odt
the learned Special Judge on the date of the
judgment itself suspended the substantive sentence.
Considering the facts and circumstances, it would be
just and proper to grant this application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
5] The substantive sentence shall remain
suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The
personal bond and the surety submitted by the
appellant to continue.
6] The appellant during the pendency of the
appeal shall not threaten or pressurize the victim.
7] The criminal application stands disposed
of, accordingly.
JUDGE
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:24.08.2022 14:01
