Bombay High Court
Manik Chokhaji Khillare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3793 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2022
Manik Chokhaji Khillare .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Roshan Hule i/b. R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
• Mr. Shailesh Ghag (Appointed) Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
the Applicant's Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2022. The Applicant
was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (POCSO) vide his Judgment and Order dated
26/09/2022 passed in Sessions Case (POCSO) No.37 of 2020.
The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V
NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR
Date:
2023.01.25
punishable u/s 509 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 12 r/w 11
16:25:23
+0530
Nesarikar
2/4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He
was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.
2. Heard Mr. Roshan Hule, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Shailesh Ghag, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
sentence imposed on the Applicant is short. The Applicant was
on bail during trial. Even after his conviction he was granted bail
u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. He has not misused that liberty. He submitted
that the Applicant is falsely implicated because of some financial
transaction between the victim's family and the Applicant's
family. The Applicant was the maternal uncle of the victim. He
submitted that there are no corroborative pieces of evidence.
The FIR is lodged after two days and no explanation is offered.
3/4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 as well as
learned APP opposed this application. They submitted that the
incident was repeated with two victims. Therefore the Applicant
does not deserve any sympathy for consideration of bail pending
his Appeal.
5. I have considered these submissions. The points raised
by both the sides will have to be decided at the final hearing
stage. However, the sentence imposed is short. The Appeal is not
likely to be decided within that short period. The Applicant was
on bail during trial. Even after his conviction he was granted bail
for a limited period. There are no allegations of misuse of that
liberty. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Applicant
can be granted bail during pendency of the Appeal.
6. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2022, the Applicant is
4/4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt
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.
(ii) The Applicant shall not cause any harassment to
any of the victims or their families.
(iii) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
