Bombay High Court
Josef Anthony Devnesan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 5-ia-642-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 642 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2023
Josef Anthony Devnesan ..Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Akshay Kolshe Patil a/w. Ashutosh Thipsay i/b. Prabhakar M.
Jadhav for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2023. The applicant was convicted and
sentenced by learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Pune, vide
his Judgment and order dated 06/01/2023 passed in Special
(POCSO) Case No.425 of 2019. The applicant was convicted for
commission of offences punishable under sections 7 and 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, as well as,
U/s.506 and 354 of the I.P.C. The major sentence imposed on him
was for three years of R.I.; besides imposition of fine.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.20
11:00:18 Gokhale
+0530
2 of 4 5-ia-642-23
2. The prosecution case is that the victim was about 15
yeas of age on the date of incident i.e. on 11/04/2019. There was
a fair in the village Dapodi. The victim had gone to purchase some
articles near a stall. At that time, the applicant touched her on her
back side. On this basis the prosecution was lodged. The applicant
was arrested and he faced the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
incident is not true. The victim's evidence itself shows that she was
not sure who had actually touched her. There was a small girl with
her. She is not examined. The victim had asked that girl as to
whether she had touched her. According to learned counsel, it
indicated that the victim was not sure about the identity of the
offender. He further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged against
an unknown person and the test identification parade was not
conducted. He further submitted that the applicant was on bail
during trial. Even after his conviction he was granted bail U/s.389
of the Cr.p.c. for a limited period. He submitted that the appeal is
not likely to be decided within a short period of six months.
3 of 4 5-ia-642-23
4. Since it is a case under the POCSO Act, it is necessary to
hear the respondent No.2 on this bail application. However, till she
is served, based on the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant, he can be protected till the next date.
5. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) Issue notice to the Respondent No.2, returnable
on 10/04/2023.
ii) In addition, the I.O. shall inform the Respondent
No.2 about pendency of these proceedings and
the next date of listing. He shall make a statement
to that effect before this court on the next date.
iii)During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.173 of 2023, till the next date, the
Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs.15000/-
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
4 of 4 5-ia-642-23
iv) This order shall operate till 10/04/2023.
v) Stand over to 10/04/2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
