Bombay High Court
Raju Prakash @ Piku Rajput vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 03-IA-4527-22-IN-APEAL-ST-22193-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4527 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.22193 OF 2022
Raju Prakash @ Piku Rajput .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Ashish Vernekar i/b. Nitesh J. Mohite, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 06th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
the Appeal preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was
convicted and sentenced by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Solapur,
vide impugned Judgment and Order dated on 14/10/2022 in
Special Case No.381 of 2020. The Applicant was convicted for
commission of offence punishable u/s 376, 376 AB, 377 of the
Digitally
signed by
Indian Penal Code and u/s 3, 4 and 5 (m) r/w 6 of the Protection
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2023.01.07
14:28:46
+0530
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The sentence imposed
Nesarikar
2/4 03-IA-4527-22-IN-APEAL-ST-22193-22.odt
on him was rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, besides
imposition of fine.
2. Heard Mr. Ashish Vernekar, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
3. The incident took place on 31/08/2020. The victim
was six year old. The prosecution case is that the Applicant was
residing in the neighbourhood of the victim. On the date of
incident, he took her to his house and forced her to take his
private part in her mouth. Her grandmother and a neighbour
reached there. The victim was crying. The grandmother
confronted him and slapped him. The Applicant on the other
hand assaulted the grandmother. On this basis, FIR is lodged
and the investigation was carried out.
4. The Applicant faced the trial and was convicted and
sentenced as mentioned earlier. Learned counsel for the
Applicant submitted that the Applicant's room was very small
3/4 03-IA-4527-22-IN-APEAL-ST-22193-22.odt
and the incident could not have taken place inside the room. He
further submitted that there was dispute about the ownership
and tenancy of the room and therefore the Applicant is falsely
implicated.
5. Learned APP opposed these submissions and relied on
the evidence of the victim, the grandmother and the neighbour.
6. I have considered these submissions and I have read
the evidence of these three main witnesses. The victim herself
was examined as P.W.5. She has narrated the incident in detail.
The grandmother was examined as P.W.2. She has supported the
victim's version. When the grandmother reached the Applicant's
house, she saw that the victim was crying and the Applicant was
not wearing his clothes. She also deposed about her
confrontation with the Applicant. This witness's evidence is
supported by P.W.3 who was a neighbour. Thus, at this stage,
there is strong material against the Applicant. The submissions
made by learned counsel for Applicant will have to be tested at
4/4 03-IA-4527-22-IN-APEAL-ST-22193-22.odt
the final hearing stage. But at this stage, no case for bail pending
the Appeal is made out.
7. The application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
