Bombay High Court
Pradip Prakash Baikar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 July, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 5 6 ia 2397-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2397 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728 OF 2022
Pradip Prakash Baikar ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Ravindra G. Gadgil a/w. U. Tambaval, Advocate for
Applicant.
Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for State/Respondent.
Mr. A.S. Pawar, PSI, Ghatkopar Police Station.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 27th JULY 2022.
PC :
1. This is an application for bail and suspension of
sentence pending the hearing and fnal disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2022.
2. Heard Shri. Ravindra Gadgil, learned Counsel for
the applicant and Smt. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the
State.
3. The applicant faced the trial before the Special
Mudaliyar
2 of 5 6 ia 2397-2022
Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). ByO the impugned judgment
and order dated 07th June, 2022, the applicant was
convicted for commission of offence punishable under
section 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced
to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of Ten (10)
Years and to payO fne of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payOment of fne to suffer Simple Imprisonment of two
months. He was also convicted for commission of offence
punishable under section 506 of IPC and he was
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of
one yOear. He was also convicted for commission of
offence under sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act. However,
no separate sentence was imposed because according to
the Learned Judge section 376(2)(i) of IPC provided for
higher punishment.
4. The prosecution case is that the applicant was
residing in the neighborhood of the victim. On 26 th
August, 2013, the informant-mother of the victim noticed
3 of 5 6 ia 2397-2022
that the victim was going for urination frequentlyO. She
was having stomachache. On further inquiryO with the
victim, she told her mother that, the applicant had taken
her to his house on the pretext of giving some eatables.
When she went to his house, he committed rape on her.
The applicant had threatened her. The victim's mother
told the incident to her husband and theyO fled report vide
Crime No.280 of 2013 at Ghatkopar Police Station. The
investigation was carried out and the applicant faced the
trial. During the proceedings, the charge was altered
from that under section from 4 to section 6 for the offence
under section 5(m) of POCSO Act and from section 8 to
section 10 of the POCSO Act for the offence under section
9(m) of the POCSO Act as the victim was a child below 12
yOears of age. After alteration of the charge, the
prosecution and the defence were given an opportunityO to
lead evidence with regard to alter charge. However, both
the parties did not take steps in that behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
4 of 5 6 ia 2397-2022
the alteration of charge has caused prejudice to the
applicant. He submitted that the applicant was on bail
during trial and has not misused the libertyO. He has not
threatened anyO witnesses.
6. Learned APP for the State on the other hand
submitted that the learned Judged has properlyO
considered the evidence. The offence is serious and bail
should not be granted.
7. I have considered these submissions. The mother
of the victim has stated that the victim was 8 yOears of
age. Birth certifcate of victim shows that her date of
birth is 06th April, 2005. Learned Judge relied on that birth
certifcate. At this stage, there is no reason to take a
different view regarding her age.
8. In the impugned judgment, the Learned Judge
has considered the evidence of victim and her mother
which was consistent with the prosecution case. Nothing
material was elicited from their cross examination. Apart
from these two witnesses, there is an independent
5 of 5 6 ia 2397-2022
witness PW-5 Sultana Beg. The applicant was residing in
her house as a tenant. She has stated that on the date of
incident she saw the applicant taking the victim with him
to his house. The medical ofcer PW-7 Dr. Kiran Yadav,
has examined the victim. He did not observe anyO signs of
external injuryO marks on her bodyO. The Learned Judge has
considered this aspect in paragraph-30 of the Judgment
with cogent reasons.
9. In this view of the matter on merits, there is
sufcient material against the applicant. The applicant
has not been in jail for a substantive period. He was
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of
ten yOears and to payO fne of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment of two months. In this
background, no case is made out for releasing the
applicant on bail. The application is therefore rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
