Bombay High Court
Kevin Satish Mhatre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 September, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:35585
Gokhale 1 of 4 24-ia-1532-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1532 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2024
Kevin Satish Mhatre ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Gaurav Parkar for Applicant.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for State/Respondent.
Mr. Shailesh Kharat (appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.3.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 4 SEPTEMBER 2024
PC :
1. The Applicant was the original accused in Special
POCSO Case No. 8 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge,
Raigad, Alibag. The learned Trial Judge, vide his Judgment and
order dated 21.03.2024 convicted the applicant for commission of
offences punishable under sections 354 and 354(A)(i) of the I.P.C.
and under sections 7 r/w. 8 and U/s.11 r/w. 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Major sentence imposed
on him was R.I. for three years, besides imposition of fine.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2024.09.05
11:18:30
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 19:21:01 :::
2 of 4 24-ia-1532-24
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there
is no proper identification of the applicant. The offence was
allegedly committed by an unknown person. There were two
victims involved in this offence. Both of them were examined
during trial. Their evidence regarding the identification of the
offender is extremely doubtful. He submitted that, while the
applicant was on bail, he has not committed any offence. Even
after his conviction, the applicant is granted bail U/s.389 of the
Cr.p.c. The sentence is short and the Appeal is not likely to be
decided within that period.
3. Learned APP, as well as, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.3 opposed these submissions. Learned appointed
counsel for the Respondent No.2 is not present. However, the
learned counsel Shri. Kharat was asked to assist the Court for the
Respondent No.2 also.
4. I have heard the parties. There were two incidents; one
was dated 22.12.2021 and other was dated 18.01.2022. PW-1 was
concerned with the incident dated 18.01.2022. It is alleged that,
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 19:21:01 :::
3 of 4 24-ia-1532-24
on that day, one unknown boy came on his cycle and showed his
private parts to PW-1 and her friends. However, PW-1 in her
deposition and in her cross-examination has categorically stated
that she had no complaints against the applicant present in the
Trial Court, and that on 18.01.2022 the applicant was not present
at the spot.
5. The other incident is dated 22.12.2021 when the
applicant allegedly had committed similar act with PW-2. She
identified the applicant in the trial Court during her deposition.
However, in her cross-examination she admitted that after filing of
the F.I.R. the applicant was brought to the police station by the
police and that she and others had seen the applicant at the police
station. Therefore, this admission makes the identification of the
applicant extremely doubtful. The sentence imposed is short. The
Appeal is not likely to be decided during that period. The applicant
was on bail during trial and he has not misused that liberty.
Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant pending his
Appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 19:21:01 :::
4 of 4 24-ia-1532-24
6. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.383 of 2024, the Applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond
in the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
