Bombay High Court
Mohd. Shahanshah Siddique ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 26 August, 2022
Bench: G. A. Sanap
1 27 appa637.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 637 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2022
MOHD. SHAHANSHAH SIDDIQUE SHHUTTAN SIDDIQUE
VERSUS
STATE OF MAH., THRU. P.S.O., P.S., KHAPARKHEDA, DIST. NAGPUR AND ANOTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. R. Thakur , Advocate for the applicant
Mr. I. J. Damle, A. P. P. for non-applicant no.1/State
Ms. S. H. Bhatia, Advocate appointed for non-applicant no.2
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : AUGUST 26, 2022.
1. The appellant/applicant and co-accused have been
convicted for the offence punishable under sections 354-D of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to
"the POCSO Act" for short), by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge and Special Court (POCSO), Nagpur in Special Child
Prot.Case No. 349/2019 vide judgment and order dated
30.04.2022. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under
Section 354-D of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five
years for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act. The substantive sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. Mr. C.R. Thakur, learned advocate for the applicant
submitted that during pendency of the trial, this appellant was
on bail. It is submitted that there is no grievance or allegation of
2 27 appa637.22.odt
misuse of the liberty by this appellant/applicant. Learned
advocate submitted that there is no iota of evidence to establish
the guilt of the appellant. The learned advocate submitted that
the appellant was driving the vehicle with the co-accused. It is
submitted that the appeal may take its time to reach the stage of
final hearing. It is submitted that therefore, during pencendy of
this appeal, the substantive sentence may be suspended on
appropriate conditions.
3. Mr. I. J. Damle, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State submitted that on the basis of cogent and concrete
evidence, the appellant has been found guilty of the offences.
He submitted that the possibility of the appellant misusing the
liberty granted by this Court cannot be ruled out. Ms. S.H.
Bhatia, learned advocate appointed for non-applicant no.2/
victim submitted that the possibility of the appellant extending
threat to the victim cannot be ruled out. In short, the learned
APP and the learned advocate for the victim/respondent no.2
opposed the application.
4. I have perused the application and the impugned
judgment and order. The maximum sentence awarded is five
years for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that so far the
appellant has not deposited the fine amount. He submits that
the appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount at the time of
furnishing bail.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that this appellant was
driving the vehicle. Perusal of the reply filed to this application
indicates that no other specific role was attributed to him.
According to the prosecution, co-accused of the appellant
3 27 appa637.22.odt
caught hold hand of the victim and pulled her inside the vehicle.
The role attributed to the appellant was that the offences were
committed by them in furtherance of their common intention.
In my view, considering the quantum of substantive sentence
and the fact that the appeal would take its own time for reaching
to the stage of final hearing, it would be just and proper to grant
this application, subject to appropriate conditions.
6. Accordingly, the criminal application is allowed.
The substantive term sentence awarded by the impugned
judgment dated 30.04.2022 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge and Special Court (POCSO), Nagpur, shall stand
suspended during pendency of this appeal, subject to the
appellant making payment of the fine amount and furnishing
PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like
amount before the trial Court.
The appellant shall not pressurize or threaten the victim/
respondent no.2 in any manner.
JUDGE
Diwale
Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:26.08.2022
18:07
