Bombay High Court
Suraj S/O Kishor Telrandhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 26 August, 2024
19.appa.788.24.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.788 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF 2024
(Suraj s/o Kishor Telrandhe Vs. State of Maharashtra)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.R. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms Dhote, APP for the State.
CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- AUGUST 26, 2024.
By preferring the appeal, the appellant has
challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.48/2019 dated
15/06/2024 whereby the appellant has held guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and
to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for 3 months.
2. The appellant is further convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1
month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer
further simple imprisonment for 8 days.
3. The appellant further convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer further
simple imprisonment for 2 months as well as of the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted
from the impugned judgment that the appellant is
convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act as well as
under Section 354 of the IPC and not considered Section
42 of the POCSO Act wherein the alternate punishment is
provided. He also pointed out from the impugned
judgment that he has many arguable points in the present
appeal but the appeal would take its own time for its final
disposal. In the meanwhile, if sentence is executed the
purpose of preferring the appeal would frustrate.
5. In view of that, he prays for the suspension of
sentence and releasing the appellant on bail.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed the application
and submitted that the appeal itself is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the application deserves
to be rejected.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for both the
parties. Admittedly, the punishment imposed is of a
limited period. Moreover, the trial Court has not
considered the Section 42 of the POCSO Act wherein the
alternate punishment is provided. The appeal would take
its own time for its final disposal. In the meantime, if
sentence is executed then the purpose of preferring the
appeal would frustrate. In view of that, the application
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order:
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The execution of the sentence vide
order dated 15/06/2024 passed by the Extra
Joint Additional Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Wardha in Special Case No.48/2019 is
hereby suspended till final disposal of the
appeal.
(iii) The appellant - Suraj s/o Kishor
Telrandhe be released on bail on executing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rs. Twenty five thousand) with one surety, in
the like amount.
8. The application stands disposed of.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF 2024
Heard.
2. ADMIT.
3. Learned APP waives notice for the State.
4. Call for R. & P.
5. Place the appeal before the Court after
preparation of the paper book.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
