Bombay High Court
Deepak Kaluram Randive vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
1 of 3 31.IA.26.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2002
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.70 OF 2022
Deepak Kaluram Randive Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents
Mr.Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP, for State.
Mr.Prosper D'Souza, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 24th February 2022
PC :
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2022.
2. The applicant has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 354, 354A(1) of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act vide judgment and order dated 1 st October
2021. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three years and six months for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO
Act. No separate sentences are imposed for offences under Sections
354 and 354A(1) of IPC.
3. The alleged incident had occurred on 1 st December 2017. The
accused had allegedly entered into the house of victim girl aged
MANISH
SURESH
Digitally signed by
MANISH SURESH THATTE
about 16 years at the time of incident and caught her hand, pulled
Date: 2022.02.26 15:03:15
THATTE +0530
her, tried to hug her and kiss her on cheek. The FIR was registered,
investigation concluded and charge sheet was filed.
2 of 3 31.IA.26.2022.doc
4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant
is in custody for a period of about four and half months. The
sentence is of short term. The appeal would not be heard within
short span of time. If the sentence is not suspended, the appeal
would become infructuous. There are no criminal antecedents
against applicant. He was on bail during trial. There is no misuse of
facility of bail. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that after the
incident, the applicant is not residing in the vicinity of complainant.
5. Learned APP submits that evidence of victim proves the charge
against applicant. There are no discrepancies in the evidence.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/victim submits that the
offence is of serious nature. The victim was minor at the time of
incident. The applicant had entered into the premises of victim and
committed the alleged act. No ground is made out for suspension of
sentence. The charge has been proved by adducing evidence. The
accused is residing in the same vicinity.
7. the applicant was on bail during trial. There is no adverse
report about misuse of bail facility. The sentence is of short term.
Evidence of PW-1 disclosed that after the incident the applicant is not
residing in the premises where the complainant-victim resides.
8. Considering the factual aspects stated above and the fact that
sentence is of short term, this application can be allowed. Hence, I
pass following order :
3 of 3 31.IA.26.2022.doc
ORDER
(i) Interim Application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii) The sentence of imprisonment imposed vide judgment and
order dated 1st October 2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune in Special (Child) Case No.14 of 2018 is suspended and
applicant is directed to be released on bail on executing PR bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- for a period of ten weeks in lieu of sureties;
(iv) The applicant shall attend Trial Court once in six months on
First Saturday of the month till disposal of the Criminal Appeal;
(v) In the event there are two consecutive defaults in attending
the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall submit report to this Court;
(vi) In the event of default committed by the applicant in attending
the Trial Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to prefer application
for cancellation of bail;
(vii) The applicant shall not approach the victim and shall stay
away from her.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
