Munir Khwajasab Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9591 Bom

                                                 1/3            11-IA-1303-22-IN-APEAL-419-22.odt

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1303 OF 2022
                                                      IN
                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419 OF 2022

                       Munir Khwajasab Shaikh                            .... Applicant
                                  versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       .... Respondents
                                                        .......

                       •      Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe, Advocate for Applicant.
                       •      Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
                       •      Mr. Rajesh L. Dharap (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent
                              No.2.

                                                CORAM      : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                                DATE       : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       P.C. :


                       1.            This is an application for bail filed by the Applicant

                            pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.419 of 2022. The

                            Applicant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated

                            31/03/2022 passed in Special case (Child) No.23 of 2019

                            passed by Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Islampur, Sangli.



          Digitally
          signed by
          MANUSHREE
                       2.            The Applicant was convicted for offence punishable u/s
MANUSHREE V
V         NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
          2022.09.23
          14:20:04
          +0530             354-A (i) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 8 and 12 of

                            the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The


                  Nesarikar
                             2/3           11-IA-1303-22-IN-APEAL-419-22.odt

     major punishment imposed on him was for 3 years besides

     imposition of fine.



3.            Heard Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe, learned counsel for the

     Applicant, Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, learned counsel for Respondent

     No.2 and Mr. Rajesh L. Dharap, learned APP for the State.



4.            Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the

     Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the

     liberty. Even after the conviction, he was granted bail by the trial

     Court u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C. He submitted that the deposition of

     the victim who was allegedly 14 years of age, does show that

     prior to the incident, the Applicant had scolded her and her

     sister on two occasions and therefore there is strong possibily of

     false implication.



5.            Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted

     that on merits the Applicant does not have a good case, but he

     could not controvert the fact that the maximum sentence is only

     for 3 years.
                             3/3          11-IA-1303-22-IN-APEAL-419-22.odt




6.            I have considered these submissions. The Appeal is

     already admitted. The question raised by both the parties will

     have to be decided during the final hearing stage. However,

     considering that the sentence imposed is for 3 years and the

     Appeal is not likely to be heard within that period, the Applicant

     deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the Appeal.


7.            Hence, the following order :


                                  ORDER

(i) During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.419 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.)