Roshan Sharad Ghadse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 10567 Bom

                                                  1/3        16-APPA-1084-19-IN-APEAL-931-19.odt

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1084 OF 2019
                                                      IN
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.931 OF 2019

                       Roshan Sharad Ghadse                             .... Applicant

                                     versus

                       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      .... Respondents
                                                        .......

                       •      Mr. Amit A. Gharte (Appointed Advocate) for Applicant.
                       •      Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

                                                CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                DATE        : 12th OCTOBER, 2022

                       P.C. :

1. This is an application for bail pending Appeal preferred

by the Applicant. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by

Special Judge under POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai, vide his

Judgment and Order dated 07/05/2019 passed in POCSO

Special Case No.23 of 2014. The Applicant was convicted for

commission of offence punishable u/s 376(2)(j) and (i) of the Digitally signed by

Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date:

2022.10.15 11:08:50 +0530

imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and Nesarikar 2/3 16-APPA-1084-19-IN-APEAL-931-19.odt

in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 7

days.

2. The incident was around August 2013. On 28/08/2013

the victim was not feeling well and therefore her mother took

her to Doctor. She was found to be pregnant. She was 1 and ½

months into her pregnancy. The victim was deaf and dumb. With

sign language she informed her mother that one boy had

committed rape on her. The offence was registered and the

investigation was carried out. The victim was examined as P.W.4

with the help of an interpreter. Learned counsel for the

Applicant submitted that her deposition shows that immediately

on the date when the incident had occurred, the victim was

taken for medical check up and on that she was found to be

pregnant for 1 and ½ months. That means that the incident

which the victim has narrated, has nothing to do with her

pregnancy. The Applicant is implicated only in respect of the

incident on the day when she was taken to Doctor. He submitted

that there is no other corroborative piece of evidence in the form

of DNA report to show that the Applicant was responsible for 3/3 16-APPA-1084-19-IN-APEAL-931-19.odt

her pregnancy. This means that there is strong possibility that

the Applicant is falsely implicated.

3. Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted

that the offence is serious. The evidence of P.W.4 victim is

sufficiently believable.

4. I have considered these submissions. The deposition of

the victim shows that she had identified the Applicant in the

Court as the person who had committed rape on her on two

occasions. As far as the Applicant is concerned, the victim has

deposed that he was the person who had committed rape on her

on two occasions. Her pregnancy and these two instances are

independent of each other. At this stage there is sufficient

material against the Applicant. The offence is serious. Therefore

bail cannot be granted to the Applicant. The application is

rejected and disposed of. The Applicant was on bail during the

trial. Therefore the Appeal is expedited.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)