Bombay High Court
Mahadeo Mallesha Birajdar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/5 21-IA-3945-22-IN-APEAL-1151-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3945 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2022
Mahadeo Mallesha Birajdar & Ors. .... Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Prashant Kamble i/b. Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate, Advocate for
Applicant.
• Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
• Mr. Nitesh Mohite (Appointed) Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. The Applicants were tried before Additional Sessions
Judge (Special POCSO Court Solapur) in Sessions Case No.122
of 2017 vide Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2022. The
Applicant No.1 was convicted for commission of offence
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from
MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR
V NESARIKAR Date:
2023.01.20
Sexual Offence Act (for short 'POCSO') and was sentenced to
15:19:20
+0530
Nesarikar
2/5 21-IA-3945-22-IN-APEAL-1151-22.odt
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years besides the
imposition of fine. All the Applicants were convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and were
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years
besides imposition of fine. They are acquitted from the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 366A read with Section 34 of
IPC. The Applicant No.1 was acquitted from offence punishable
under Section 354A of IPC and of the offence punishable under
Section 12 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that they
were on bail during trial. They have not misused that liberty. He
further submitted that even after conviction they were granted
Interim Bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. According to him the prosecution case is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident, the victim
was 17 years and 11 months old. Her date of birth was
3/5 21-IA-3945-22-IN-APEAL-1151-22.odt
14.02.1999 and the incident had taken place on 03.02.2017.
Her evidence shows that the Applicant No.1 was a relative.
3. According to the prosecution case, the victim's house
was at some distance from her college. The applicant No.1 came
in a car and offered to drop her to her house. He was
accompanied by the applicant No.3. Based on their offer, the
victim sat in the car. The applicant No.1 was her relative. After
some time, the applicant No.3 got down and the applicant No.2
entered the car. It is alleged that the applicant No.1 assaulted
and threatened the victim. She was taken to Muchandi village
where the car broke down. The villagers got suspicious and
informed the police. In the meantime, the offence was
registered at Vijapurnaka police station vide C.R. No.68/2017.
The officers of that police station went to Jat police station. The
applicant Nos.1 & 2 were arrested. The applicant No.3 was
arrested subsequently.
4/5 21-IA-3945-22-IN-APEAL-1151-22.odt
4. Heard Mr. Prashant Kamble, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Nitesh Mohite, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2, and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
nobody from Muchandi village was examined. Even the police
officers from Jat police station were not examined.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that
the prosecution case is that the victim was assaulted by the
accused No.1. A sickle and an iron rod were found in the car.
7. I have considered these submissions. There is nothing
to show that the victim had suffered any injuries or she had
sought help from anybody. The victim was travelling with the
accused for quite some distance and during all this time, she had
not sought any help. The sentence imposed is short i.e. for three
years and the Appeal is not likely to be decided within that
period. As mentioned earlier, the Applicants were on bail during
5/5 21-IA-3945-22-IN-APEAL-1151-22.odt
trial. There are no allegations of misuse of liberty. Even after
their conviction, the Applicants were granted bail u/s 389 of
Cr.P.C.
8. Considering all these aspects, the Applicants can be
granted bail during pendency and final disposal of the Appeal.
9. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.1151 of 2022, the Applicants
are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each, with one or
two sureties each, in the like amount.
(ii) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
