Bombay High Court
Pratap @ Dayanand Kondiba Thotave vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 18.apeal-993-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.993 OF 2022
Pratap @ Dayanand Kondiba Thotave ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
-----
Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Amresh B. Sharma, Advocate (appointed) a/w Vishal
Khete, for the Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. The appeal is already admitted. Today the matter
is listed on board for consideration of prayer for bail during
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
pendency and final disposal of the appeal.
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2023.01.20
10:50:38 +0530 2. Heard Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, learned counsel for
the appellant, Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the respondent
No.1-State and Shri Amresh Sharma, learned appointed
counsel for the Respondent No.2.
3. The appellant was convicted by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Barshi vide his judgment and order dated
1 of 3
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 18.apeal-993-22.odt
7.7.2022 passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.6/2018. The
appellant was convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 354(b) of IPC and under Section 12
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(for short, 'POCSO Act'). The major sentence imposed on him
was for three years besides imposition of fine.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant has already paid the fine amount. The appellant
was on bail during trial and even after his conviction he was
granted bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.c. for a limited period
which was extended by this Court on the previous occasions.
She submitted that the identity of the appellant is not firmly
established during the investigation as well as during trial.
There are indications that the appellant could have been shown
by the police officers to the victim in the police station. She
submitted that the appellant has good case on merits. There
are improvements in the evidence of the victim and her mother.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted
that the offence is serious and the offence would have
escalated to higher degree had the victim not run away from
2 of 3
:3: 18.apeal-993-22.odt
the spot.
6. Learned APP opposed this application, but, she
conceded that the sentence is short.
7. I have considered these submissions. The points
raised by learned counsel for the appellant will have to be
decided at the final hearing stage. The sentence is short and
the appellant was on bail during trial. There are no allegations
that he has misused that liberty. He has already paid the fine
amount. The appeal is not likely to be decided within a short
period of three years. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be
released on bail during pendency of his appeal.
8. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal
No.993/2022, 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.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
3 of 3
