Bombay High Court
Prashant @ Parsram Srishail Tuppe vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 2-i.ia-4518-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4518 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1296 OF 2022
Prashant @ Parsram Srishail Tuppe ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Prashant Kamble, Advocate i/b. Vikrant V. Phatate, for
the Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2023
Digitally signed by
P.C. :
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2023.01.16
11:03:08 +0530
1. This is an application for bail pending hearing
and final disposal of appeal preferred by the original
appellant No.2, who was the original accused No.2, in
Special Case No.53/2015 before the Special Judge under
POCSO Act, Solapur.
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 2-i.ia-4518-22.odt
2. Heard Shri Prashant Kamble, learned counsel for
the applicant and Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP for the
respondent No.1-State.
3. The learned Trial Judge, vide his judgment and
order dated 7.12.2022 convicted the applicant for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and
506 of IPC. He was acquitted from the charges of
commission of offences punishable under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
4. The original appellant No.1/accused No.1 was
convicted for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 341, 376 and 506 of IPC and under Section 3 read
with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act').
5. The major sentence imposed on the present
applicant i.e. original accused No.2 was for two years.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
2 of 4
:3: 2-i.ia-4518-22.odt
the applicant was on bail during trial. He has not misused
that liberty. Even after his conviction, he was granted bail
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of the victim PW-2
does not inspire confidence. The FIR is lodged much
belatedly. The conduct of the victim and her parents is
unnatural.
7. Since in the appeal the respondent No.2 is a
party and it is case under POCSO Act, it is necessary to hear
the respondent No.2. However, considering the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant, till the
respondent No.2 is served, the applicant/original appellant
No.2 can be granted bail.
8. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. Issue notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on
15.2.2023.
ii. The investigating officer shall inform the
respondent No.2 about pendency of these
proceedings and the next date of listing.
3 of 4
:4: 2-i.ia-4518-22.odt
iii. Till the next date, 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.
iv. It is made clear that this order shall operate till the
next date.
v. Stand over to 15.2.2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
