Bombay High Court
Roshan Harischandra ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
30. IA-983-2021-in- APEAL-257-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 983 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2021
Roshan Harischandra Ghadigaonkar ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Rohit Mahadik a/w Mr. Rajdeep Gude,
Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Sushan Mhatre, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2022
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail during the pendency of of Criminal appeal No.257 of
2021. The applicant is convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 354, 354-A(I)(i), 354-D and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for
short "IPC") and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). He has been sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of one year for conviction under Section
354 of IPC, three years under Section 8 of POCSO ACT and two
months for the conviction under Section 323 of IPC.
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
Date:
JAMADAR 2022.03.19
18:41:22
+0530
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 5
30. IA-983-2021-in- APEAL-257-2021.doc
2. The prosecution case is that on 26th April, 2018 at
about 5.00 p.m. the accused had stalked the victim and caught her
from behind and outraged her modesty. He touched the private
part of victim. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was
registered. The applicant was arrested. Investigation proceeded
and charge-sheet was filed.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no
cogent evidence to convict him for the aforesaid offences. There is
no independent witness corroborating the version of victim. The
applicant was on bail during the trial. Even on the date of
conviction sentence was suspended by the trial Court and the
applicant is directed to be released on bail. This Court had
continued the trial Court's order of suspension of sentence. The
incident had occurred on public road. However, there is no
independent witness. It is difficult to believe that the victim could
be subjected to sexual assault on the road. The evidence suffers
from several discrepancies. The FIR was not lodged immediately
after the incident. The allegations are concocted. Applicant has
been implicated due to rivalry on account of applicant holding
important position in local temple.
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 5
30. IA-983-2021-in- APEAL-257-2021.doc
4. Learned APP submitted that the incident is of serious
nature. Specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant.
There is no reason to disbelieve the version of victim. There was
no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. The victim was injured
due to fall at the place of incident. This fact is corroborated by
medical evidence. The accused stalked the victim and then
subjected her to sexual assault.
5. learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the
submissions of learned APP. It is submitted that there is evidence
on record to establish that the applicant has committed the offence.
The victim had suffered injuries on leg and knee which
corroborates the case of prosecution that the accused had pushed
the victim on road, at the time of incident.
6. The maximum sentence imposed by the trial Court for
conviction is three years. The sentence is of short term. The
applicant was on bail during the trial. There is no adverse report
about misusing facility of bail granted to the applicant. The
sentence of imprisonment was suspended by the trial Court on the
day of conviction in accordance with Section 389 of Cr.P.C. This
Court, by way of interim relief had continued the suspension of
sentence vide order dated 5th April, 2021. The incident had
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 5
30. IA-983-2021-in- APEAL-257-2021.doc
allegedly occurred on the road. The defence has urged that there is
no independent witness to the incident. Serious doubt is raised on
the ground that, it is difficult to believe that such incident could
occur at public place.
7. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, sentence
of imprisonment can be suspended. Hence, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 983 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.257 of
2021, the sentence of imprisonment imposed vide Judgment
and order dated 6th February, 2021 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros, in Special Case (POCSO) No 21 OF
2019 is suspended and the applicant is directed to be released
on bail on executing P.R. 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 surety.
iv. The applicant shall attend the trial Court once in six
months on first Saturday of the month till the final disposal of
the appeal;
v. In the event, there are two consecutive defaults in
attending the trial Court, the said fact may be brought to the
notice of this Court and in such eventuality, the prosecution
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 5
30. IA-983-2021-in- APEAL-257-2021.doc
will be at liberty to prefer an application for cancellation of
bail.
vi. The applicant shall not cause any harassment to
victim.
vii. Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 5 of 5
