Bombay High Court
Samadhan Udebhan Tayade vs State Of Mha. Thr. Murtizapur ... on 12 October, 2022
Bench: G. A. Sanap
29 appa 758.22.odt..odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.758 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.590 OF 2022
Samadhan Udebhan Tayade
(Vs.)
State of Maharashtra, Murtizapur Gramin District Akola and another
____________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Suyansh Sirpurkar, Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for
the applicant.
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar APP for respondent No.1/State.
Ms Deepali V. Sapkal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 12.10.2022.
This is an application filed under Section 389
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of
substantive sentence and grant of bail.
2. The applicant/appellant has been convicted
for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 354-A of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act,
2012 (hereinafter called as "the POCSO Act" for short).
3. The applicant is sentenced to suffer Rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month for the offence punishable under Section
29 appa 758.22.odt..odt
354-A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-,
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days
for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the
Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for
five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the
offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act
and R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO
Act. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Fine amount has been deposited by the appellant.
4. It is the case of the applicant/accused that he
has a good case on merit. The punishment awarded for
the major offence is imprisonment for five years. It is
further stated that during the pendency of the trial, the
applicant/accused was not on bail. So far, he has
undergone the imprisonment for more than three years. It
is submitted that considering the nature of the charge
levelled against him and the substantive sentence, it
would be just and proper to suspend the sentence and
release the applicant/accused on bail.
5. The State has filed the reply. It is contended
29 appa 758.22.odt..odt
that the victim was mentally retarded. The charge proved
against the applicant is serious. It is contended that if the
applicant is enlarged on bail, then his presence in the
society would be a threat to victim and her family
members. It is therefore, contended that no case has been
made out to suspend the sentence.
6. Learned appointed Advocate for respondent
No.2 advanced the arguments without filing the reply.
She has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned
APP.
7. It is undisputed that the applicant/accused
has been in jail for more than three years. As per order
passed by the learned Special Judge, he would be required
to undergo maximum sentence of five years. I have
perused the record and proceeding. The major offence
punishable under Section 376(2) has not been proved.
The State has not filed appeal against acquittal of the
appellant for the major offence punishable under Section
376(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
8. In the facts and circumstances and considering
the sentence already undergone by the applicant/accused,
it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice
to suspend the sentence and release the applicant/accused
on bail.
29 appa 758.22.odt..odt
9. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
(i) The substantive sentence awarded for the
different counts as, stated above, vide judgment and order
dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Akola, shall remain suspended during the pendency of
the appeal.
(ii) The appellant shall deposit the fine amount, if
it is not deposited so far.
(iii) Appellant/applicant - Samadhan Udebhan
Tayade be released on bail on his furnish P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like
amount.
(iv) The appellant shall not in any manner
threaten or pressurize the victim or her parents.
(v) The Criminal Application stand disposed of.
JUDGE
manisha
Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE
Signing Date:12.10.2022 18:45
