Bombay High Court
Abdulla Jakaullha Usmani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 December, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 16.ia-3603-22-3604-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3603 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1057 OF 2022
....
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3604 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1057 OF 2022
Abdulla Jakaullha Usmani ..... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. A.A. Pande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Digitally signed
by
Mr. Ajit M. Savagave, Advocate (appointed) for the
Respondent No.2.
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2022.12.21
-----
10:51:02
+0530
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. These are the applications for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal
filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and order
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 16.ia-3603-22-3604-22.odt
dated 28.9.2022 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO
Act for Greater Mumbai in POCSO Case No.234/2014.
2. The applicant was convicted for commission of
the offence punishable under Sections 293, 354-A(iii), 509
of IPC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act').
The maximum sentence imposed on him was for one year
besides imposition of fine.
3. Heard Shri A.A. Pande, learned counsel for the
applicant, Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP for the respondent
No.1-State and Shri Ajit Savagave, learned appointed
counsel for the respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused
that liberty. The alleged incident is dated 30.6.2013. About
nine years have passed. He submitted that even after his
conviction he was granted bail for a limited period under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
2 of 4
:3: 16.ia-3603-22-3604-22.odt
5. He further submitted that the incident is not
true. The hard-disk which was sent to FSL did not contain
the photographs which were allegedly shown to the victim
by the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and
learned APP opposed these applications on merits. They
submitted that the applicant had shown obscene videos to a
minor girl aged eleven years. The computer expert has
supported the case of the prosecution.
7. I have considered these submissions. Both the
parties have raised the issues which will have to be decided
during final hearing stage after considering the record and
proceedings. However, the sentence is short and the appeal
is not likely to be decided during that period. The alleged
incident has taken place about nine years ago. Considering
all these aspects, the applicant can be granted bail.
8. Hence, the following order :
3 of 4
:4: 16.ia-3603-22-3604-22.odt
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1057/2022, 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 in any manner, directly or indirectly.
iii. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
