Bombay High Court
Vikash Rambahadur Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 November, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 15-apeal-435-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2022
Vikash Rambahadur Singh ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay a/w. Aakash Mishra i/b. Law Juris for
Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Ms. Dhruti M. Kapadia (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 21st NOVEMBER 2022
PC :
1. Today, the Appeal is listed for consideration of prayer
clauses (b) and (c) which are for staying the execution,
implementation of the impugned order and Judgment and in
alternative to suspend the sentence.
2. Heard Shri. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the Appellant, Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State and Ms.
Dhruti Kapadia, learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent
No.2.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.11.22
11:10:25
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 4 15-apeal-435-22
3. The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable U/s.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act (for short ' POCSO Act') and was sentenced to suffer
R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The Appellant was
acquitted from the Charges of commission of offence punishable
U/s.4 of POCSO Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that,
learned Judge has disbelieved the prosecution story, so far as,
allegations of penetrative sexual assault is concerned and,
therefore, it was not open for him to rely on the other part of the
evidence of the prosecution and in particular, that of the evidence
of the victim herself. He submitted that the medical evidence also
does not support the prosecution case. Thus, the applicant has
good case on merits. Therefore, he be granted bail.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that,
there is no reason to disbelieve version of the victim herself. She
has clearly deposed about the incident. When the appellant was
3 of 4 15-apeal-435-22
confronted with the incident as narrated by the victim, he just
went away. If he had not committed any offence, his conduct
would have been otherwise.
6. Learned APP opposed this application on the basis of
evidence led by the prosecution.
7. I have considered these submissions. I have also perused
the depositions annexed to this appeal. The sentence imposed on
the appellant is only of three years. The Appellant's appeal is
already admitted, therefore, all the issues raised by learned
counsel for the Appellant will have to be decided at the stage of
final hearing. The Appeal is not likely to be decided within a short
period of three years. Therefore, the Appellant can be granted bail.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the appellant
was on bail during trial and he has not misused that liberty. He is
implicated falsely because of financial dispute. Considering all
these aspects and the above discussion, the appellant can be
granted bail pending his appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant
states that fine amount is already paid.
4 of 4 15-apeal-435-22
8. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final hearing of this Appeal
the substantive sentence imposed on the
appellant is suspended and the Appellant is
released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
