Bombay High Court
Yadav Alias Raju Kisan Petar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 02-IA-3447-22-IN-APEAL-1007-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3447 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1007 OF 2022
Yadav alias Raju Kisan Petar .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. The Applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No.1007 of
2022 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 17/09/2022
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case
No.428 of 2018. The Applicant was convicted for commission of
offence punishable u/s 354 and 376 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal
Code. For the offence u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code, he was
Digitally
signed by
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2022.10.20
11:07:09
+0530
pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
Nesarikar
2/4 02-IA-3447-22-IN-APEAL-1007-22.odt
rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence
punishable u/s 376 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code he was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three months. Both the substantive sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Akshay Bankapur, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case is that the victim i.e. the P.W.1
was unable to conceive and therefore she had gone to one
person who promised that some ritual would help her in
becoming pregnant. He had directed the victim to the father of
the Appellant. It is the case of prosecution that the Appellant
took advantage of the situation. He asked the husband of the
P.W.1 to wait outside and inside the room he tried to commit
sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim resisted and she
came out.
3/4 02-IA-3447-22-IN-APEAL-1007-22.odt
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that there
is contrary evidence led by the prosecution. The victim was
referred to the father of the Appellant and not to the Appellant.
Therefore there is case of mistaken identity. In any case the
incident is improbable. He added that the alleged incident had
taken place on 09/05/2015. The sentence is short. The
Appellant has good case on merits and therefore the Appellant
may be granted bail pending the Appeal.
5. Learned APP opposed this application. But she
conceded that the sentence of Applicant is short.
6. I have considered these submissions. The Appeal is
already admitted. The question raised by the learned counsel for
the Applicant will have to be decided during final hearing stage
of the Appeal. The Applicant was on bail during the trial. He has
not misused the same, even after his conviction as pointed out
by learned counsel for the Applicant, he was granted bail u/s
4/4 02-IA-3447-22-IN-APEAL-1007-22.odt
389 of Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed on him is short and the
Appeal is not likely to be decided within that short period.
Therefore the Applicant deserves to be released on bail during
the pendency of the Appeal.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.1007 of 2022, the Applicant
is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
