Bombay High Court
Rohit Suresh Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:32571
1/4 40-IA-2443-24-IN-APEAL-647-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2443 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.647 OF 2024
Rohit Suresh Jadhav .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Ms. Shraddha Vahal, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Ms. Priyanka Chavan, appointed advocate for Respondent
No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12th AUGUST, 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant was the sole accused before the Special
Judge, Raigad-Alibag, in Special (POCSO) Case No.46/2023.
The learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated
17/05/2024 convicted the Applicant u/s 7 r/w 8, 11 r/w 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO),
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2012 and u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced
2024.08.14
15:07:15
+0530
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:29:58 :::
2/4 40-IA-2443-24-IN-APEAL-647-24.odt
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further
rigorous imprisonment for one month. In view of section 42 of
POCSO Act, no separate punishment was awarded for the
offence punishable u/s 12 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard Ms. Shraddha Vahal, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Ms. Priyanka Chavan, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 and Smt. Manisha R. Tidke, learned APP for
the State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim P.W.2 was
studying in 10th standard. She was 14 years of age. In January
2022, the accused proposed his love for the victim. She accepted
it. Their friendship turned into love relationship. It is alleged
that her family was against their relationship. On 10/07/2023,
on the Applicant's birth day, he committed acts which would fall
within the definition described u/s 7 of POCSO. The Applicant
gifted her a mobile phone. Her family found it and returned it to
the Applicant. On 17/10/2023, the victim went with the
Applicant towards the hills. The victim's friend saw that and
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:29:58 :::
3/4 40-IA-2443-24-IN-APEAL-647-24.odt
informed the family. After that, this FIR was lodged and the
Applicant was prosecuted.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
maximum sentence imposed is for one year and the Appeal is
not likely to be decided within that period. The Applicant was
admittedly in relationship with the victim and therefore some
leniency be shown to him.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 pointed out
that the minimum sentence u/s 8 is three years and the sentence
of one year is not permissible in law. Learned APP supported
that contention.
6. I have considered these submissions. Considering this
background, the minimum sentence of three years is prescribed.
However, the learned Judge committed an error in imposing the
sentence of one year. The Appeal is not likely to be decided
within a period of one year or even three years. Therefore, the
Applicant can be granted bail pending his Appeal. However,
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:29:58 :::
4/4 40-IA-2443-24-IN-APEAL-647-24.odt
Respondent No.2, if it is proved that the Applicant has
committed the offence u/s 8 of POCSO, the minimum sentence
of three years will have to be imposed.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During the pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.647 of 2024, 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.
(ii) The Applicant shall not cause any harassment to
the victim or her family.
(iii) Issue notice for enhancement of sentence to the
Applicant.
(iv) The application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
