Sunil Nivrutti Ranmale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 10804 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:31524




                                                 1/3
                                                                                 4.ia430.23.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2023
                                       IN
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2022


             Sunil Nivrutti Ranmale                    ...Applicant
                   vs.
             State of Maharashtra & Anr.               ...Respondents


             Mr. Akshay Bankapur for the Applicant.
             Mrs. P. P. Shinde APP for Respondent No.1-State.
             Ms. Meghna Gowalani for Respondent No.2.


                                    CORAM : N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATED : 18TH OCTOBER 2023

P. C. :

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal

preferred by applicants challenging the judgment of

conviction.

2. Applicant is convicted under Sections 4, 6, 12 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(for short "POCSO Act") and is sentenced to suffer RI for ten

years and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-.

Shiv

4.ia430.23.doc

3. Learned Advocate for Applicant submits that

Applicant is 24 years old and there was love affair in

between victim and Applicant. It has come on record that

Applicant was deserted by his wife and out of love affair, the

incident has taken place. He submits that the prosecution

has failed to prove that victim was minor at the time of

incident. Hence, according to him, application deserves to be

allowed.

4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for

Respondent No.2 strenuously opposed the application

contending that there is sufficient evidence on record to

warrant conviction of the applicant. Applicant is cousin of the

victim and inspite of that he had taken undue advantage and

indulged in physical relation with her, therefore, he is not

entitled for bail.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgment there

appears sufficient material to sustain conviction. Prima

facie, it appears that the trial Court has rightly relied on

evidence of victim and her father. Victim's father has

deposed before the trial Court that Applicant threatened

witnesses when he was released on bail, during the trial. In

Shiv

4.ia430.23.doc this view of matter, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to

Applicant. Application is, therefore, rejected.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Appeal

is expedited.

[N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

Shiv