Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Hariram Tulavi vs State Of Mah.T Hr. Pso Keshori ... on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 9apeal163.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2022
Nilesh Hariram Tulavi
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.G.Karmarkar, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. A.R.Chutke, APP for respondent No.1/State
Ms. S.H.Bhatiya, Advocate for respondent No.2 assisting prosecution.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 06/07/2022
Heard Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Chutke, learned APP for respondent
No.1 State, assisted by Ms. Bhatia, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
By the impugned judgment, the appellant is
convicted for the offence under Sections 294, 341 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 8 & 12 of
the POCSO Act, and sentenced to suffer R.I for three
months and fine of Rs.500/- & i/d R.I. for 15 days for the
offence under Section 294 r/w 34 of IPC; R.I for one
month and fine of Rs.500 and i/f R.I. for 7 days for
offence under Section 341 r/w 34 of the I.P.C; R.I. for
five yers and fine of Rs.5,000/- & i/d R.I. for six months
for the offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act and R.I. for
(2) 9apeal163.22
three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- & i/f R.I. for three
months for the offence u/s 12 of the POCO Act.
Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the
appellant by inviting my attention to para 25 of the
impugned judgment submits that the present appellant
had no role to play in the matter of the incident except
for sitting on the motor cycle and in fact had been asking
the accused no. 2 not to eve-tease the victim. The
appellant has been convicted only for the reason that he
was present on the spot. This is further reflected from the
evidence of PW-8 (last para of the cross-examination),
considering which, Admit.
Learned APP waives notice for Respondent
No.1/State and Ms.Bhatia, learned counsel for
Respondent No.2.
Criminal Application (APPA) No.204/2022
The application seeks suspension of sentence
and release on bail. Considering that the impugned
judgment does not attribute any active role to the
appellant, who was the accused No.1, except for standing
on the spot on his motor cycle and the fact that he had
advised the accused no.2 not to eve-tease the victim, and
the fact that the appellant was on bail in the trial Court,
a case for suspension of sentence is made out.
(3) 9apeal163.22
The application is allowed. The sentence
imposed by the learned Special Court by the impugned
judgment stands suspended and the appellant/applicant
be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- and the solvent surety of the like amount.
The aforesaid order shall come into
operation only after the fine is paid.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:44
