Sudhir Chatrabhuj Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12792 Bom

                            :1:                       15.ia-1344-22.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1344 OF 2022
                               IN
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2022

Sudhir Chatrabhuj Gaikwad                         ...Applicant
            Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                   .... Respondents

                            -----
Mr. Vikrant B. Shinsde, Advocate for the Applicant.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate i/b. Pranali P. Kakade (advocate
appointed) for Respondent No.2.
                            -----

                                  CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. :

1. This is an application for bail pending appeal.

The applicant was convicted for commission of the offence

punishable under Section 376(2)(i), 354 read with 34 of IPC

and under Sections, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The

major sentence imposed on him was RI for twenty years

besides imposition of fine. He was original accused No.2.

Besides him, the accused No.1 was also similarly convicted

1 of 3

Deshmane(PS) :2: 15.ia-1344-22.odt

and sentenced. This order was passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated

2.12.2020 in Special POCSO S.C. No.33/2016.

2. Heard Shri Vikrant Shinsde, learned counsel for

the applicant, Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the

respondent No.1-State and Shri Akash Singh, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

the applicant is in custody since 2015. On merits, he has a

good case. He submitted that PW-4, who was a neighbour of

the victim, has accepted in the cross-examination that she

had told the police in her police statement that not only both

the accused but even the victim's father used to harass her.

He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution case is not

true.

4. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 opposed this application. Both of them

relied on the evidence of the victim PW-2 and the medical

evidence.

                                                               2 of 3
                                                       :3:                       15.ia-1344-22.odt

5. I have considered these submissions. The victim's

evidence is clear enough. She has narrated that both the

accused, including the present applicant, were her father's

friends. They used to visit her house and under the

influence of liquor they used to commit sexual intercourse

on her. She was eleven years of age at the time of incident.

Her deposition is supported by PW-3 Dr. Pawar and he has

deposed that there was injury to her hymen, edges were old

healed and there was mild perihymenal inflammation. He

has given his opinion that there was evidence of multiple

acts of penetrative sexual vaginal intercourse. At this stage,

there is sufficient material against the applicant to deny him

bail pending his appeal.

6. In view of this discussion, the application is

rejected.

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date:

2022.12.09 12:40:18 +0530

Deshmane (PS)

3 of 3