Bombay High Court
Rajesh Narayan Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:32679
:1: 909-IA-470-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.470 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.77 OF 2025
Rajesh Narayan Joshi .....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
and another .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate a/w. Ishan Paradkar, Rahi Patil,
Indrayanee Pandit, Yash Fadtare, Shivani Kondekar for the
Applicant.
Mr. Pankaj P. Devkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Kushal Mor, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 01st AUGUST, 2025
P.C. :
1. This is an Application for bail pending his Appeal.
The appeal is already admitted.
2. Heard Shri Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Pankaj Devkar, learned APP for the Respondent
No.1-State and Mr. Kushal Mor, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2.
1 of 5
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:13:16 :::
:2: 909-IA-470-25.odt
3. The Applicant was convicted by the Special Judge,
Pune vide his judgment and order dated 9.1.2025 passed in
Special POCSO Case No.148/2017. The learned Judge convicted
the Applicant for commission of the offence punishable under
Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') and under Section 354, 354-A
of IPC. The Applicant was sentenced to suffer RI for five years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to suffer RI for six months. The Applicant was in custody from
19.3.2017 to 1.4.2017 and thereafter from 9.1.2025 till today.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is
falsely implicated. The Applicant had scolded the victim for not
attending the tuition classes and, therefore, she was holding a
grudge against him. The victim's mother was a police constable
and, therefore, at her behest this false case is filed against the
Applicant. The Applicant is a senior citizen. He is above sixty
years of age. He was a tuition class teacher. He was conducting
the tuitions for many years and there are no criminal antecedents
alleged against him. The prosecution evidence shows that the
incident has allegedly taken place when the wife of the Applicant
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:13:16 :::
:3: 909-IA-470-25.odt
was also present in the house. Therefore, the offence could not
have taken place at all. It is further submitted that there are
indications that the victim was tutored. There were two other
alleged victims examined by the prosecution, but, they have not
supported the prosecution case. It also shows that the Applicant
was falsely implicated and every attempt was made to bring false
evidence against him.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2
as well as learned APP submitted that there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of PW-2, who is the victim in this case.
She was a girl of ten years of age. She would not make false
statement against her own teacher unless the incident was true.
6. Shri Mor further submitted that there were two
rooms in the house. The Applicant's wife was conducting her own
tuition class in one room and at that time this incident has taken
place in the other room. Therefore, it was quite possible. He
further submitted that the Applicant has taken contrary defences;
at one place he has relied on alibi but there is no such evidence
brought on record by him. The other evidence of the victim
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:13:16 :::
:4: 909-IA-470-25.odt
entertaining a grudge against him is also not sufficiently brought
on record by the Applicant.
7. I have considered these submissions. The Appeal is
already admitted. It is not likely to be decided within a reasonable
period. The Applicant was on bail throughout the trial. There are
no antecedents against him. He is in custody for almost about
eight months.
8. The evidence of the victim (PW-2) shows that she has
admitted in her cross-examination that her mother had told her all
the questions that would be asked and as to how she had to answer
those questions. Therefore, there is substance in the submission of
the learned counsel for the Applicant that PW-2 was a tutored
witness. Apart from that she has given evasive answers and has
stated that she did not remember whether on 16.3.2017 the
Applicant had slapped her because she was absent. The incident
in question was dated 15.3.2017. Therefore, she again attending
the class on 16.3.2017 after informing her mother seems rather
difficult to believe. She has further answered that she did not
remember as to whether she attended the tuition class on
17.3.2017. All these evasive answers support the submission of
4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 10:13:16 :::
:5: 909-IA-470-25.odt
Shri Joshi that the incident may not be true. Any way all these
questions will have to be decided during the final hearing stage of
the Appeal.
9. However, the Applicant has made out a case for grant
of bail during pendency of his Appeal.
10. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R :
:
i. During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal
No.77/2025, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
PRADIPKUMAR (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
5 of 5
