Bombay High Court
Sarjerao Mahadeo Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 December, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 14-IA-3095-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.930 OF 2022
Shri Sarjerao Mahadeo Shinde .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
• Mr. Rahul B. Khot for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending Criminal Appeal
No.930 of 2022 preferred by the applicant. He has challenged
the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2022 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Special Case (POSCO)
No.51 of 2020. Applicant was convicted for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children
Shivgan
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2022 18:10:39 :::
2/4 14-IA-3095-22.odt
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Maximum sentence imposed
on him was three years besides, imposition of fine.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was on
bail during the trial and he has not misused the same and
informed that even after his conviction, he was granted bail
under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
He submitted that the incident could not have taken place
because there was another student in the class-room. That
student was examined as defence witness. He deposed that
no such incident had taken place in his presence.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed the
application. He submitted that the other student, who was
present in the class-room, continued to be a student of that
tuition class and, therefore, he had supported the accused,
who was a teacher in that tuition class. Incident had occurred
and there is no reason to disbelieve the victim, who is
examined as P.W.2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the application. However, she conceded that the
sentence is short.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2022 18:10:39 :::
3/4 14-IA-3095-22.odt
4. I have considered these submissions. Sentence is short and
appeal is not likely to be decided within this period. The
Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the
same. Even after his conviction, he was granted bail under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 and has
not misused the same. Both the sides have raised some points,
which will have to be decided at the final hearing of the
appeal. Hence, considering these aspects and the short period
of sentence, the applicant is granted bail during the pendency
and final hearing of the Criminal Appeal.
5. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency of Criminal Appeal No.930 of
2022, the Applicant is directed to be released
on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only),
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall not cause harassment to
the victim or her family members in any
manner directly or indirectly.
4/4 14-IA-3095-22.odt
(iii) Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
