Bombay High Court
Suresh Hindurao Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:32783
1/4 17-IA-2057-24-IN-APEAL-527-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2057 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.527 OF 2024
Suresh Hindurao Kamble .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Jyotiram S. Yadav, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2024
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending Appeal. Learned
APP on instructions states that the notice is served on the
Respondent No.2. She had informed the Investigating Officer
that she was engaging a private counsel. In the afternoon
session also nobody appeared for her. When the matter was
called out in the morning, nobody had appeared. Therefore,
since this is an application for bail, I have heard the learned
counsel for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant was the sole accused before the Special
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2024.08.16
14:53:38
+0530
Judge, Kolhapur, in Special Case No.192 of 2021. The learned
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:08 :::
2/4 17-IA-2057-24-IN-APEAL-527-24.odt
Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 16/04/2024
convicted the Applicant for commission of offence punishable
u/s 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months. He was convicted for commission of offence punishable
u/s 12 of the POCSO Act. The operative part of the impugned
Judgment and Order itself shows that the Applicant has
undergone 11 months and 25 days in custody during the
investigation and trial. Thus, out of three years, hardly two years
of sentence is left.
3. Heard Mr. Jyotiram S. Yadav, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Smt. Sangita D. Shinde, learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant has undergone 11 months and 25 days in custody.
Since the Appeal is not likely to be decided during the remaining
period, he deserves to be released on bail.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:08 :::
3/4 17-IA-2057-24-IN-APEAL-527-24.odt
5. The incident is dated 17/08/2021. The victim was 14
years old. On the date of incident, at about 02.30 p.m. her
mother was washing utensils in the backyard of the house. The
victim was inside the house. The Applicant came inside the
house, sat on the Sofa and touched the victim inappropriately
which would fall within the meaning of section 7 r/w 8 of the
POCSO Act. After that, he left the house. Both the families i.e.
the family of the Applicant and that of the victim, were knowing
each other. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother. Then
the FIR was lodged and the investigation was carried out.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that on
merits, he has a good case. There was no reason for the
Applicant to have committed this offence. He is falsely
implicated because of the dispute between the two families. The
prosecution case is that after committing this offence, the
Applicant again came to the victim's house. According to the
learned counsel for the Applicant, this was not possible and the
incident is false.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:08 :::
4/4 17-IA-2057-24-IN-APEAL-527-24.odt
7. All these questions will have to be decided at the final
hearing stage of the Appeal. However, the Applicant has already
undergone at least 1/3rd of the sentence. The Appeal is not
likely to be decided during the remaining period. Therefore, the
Applicant can be granted bail pending the Appeal.
8. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During the pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.527 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) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
