[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hanuman Pandurang Katke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2789
1 913.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4657 OF 2025
IN APEAL/936/2025
HANUMAN PANDURANG KATKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D.M. Shinde
APP for Respondent No. 1 : Ms. A.S. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.M. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for grant of bail and suspension of
sentence. The present applicant/original accused was convicted by the
Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Gangakhed, in Sessions Case No.
04/2021, for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of the
Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer imprisonment for two years and
pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Default sentence of one month was imposed upon
him.
2. The applicant was also convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 354-A of the IPC, and Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and directed to
2 913.odt
suffer imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.
1,000/-. Default sentence was also imposed on him.
3. He was further convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 354-B of the IPC and Section 8 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and directed to suffer
imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine. Default sentence
was also imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was
arrested on 07.01.2021, and was released on bail on 07.10.2021. Thus, he
has undergone the sentence of nine months. He further submitted that the
sentence imposed upon him is of fixed term and considering the age of
the present applicant, he can be ordered to undergo the same once the
appeal is finally decided. According to him, after his release on bail, he
did not misuse his liberty. He submits that several arguable points are
involved in the appeal, since the question whether statement under
Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was appreciated in proper
manner or not, is also required to looked into. He further submitted that
since the offences for which he was convicted, are intention based
ofence, the fact whether intention was proved by the prosecution or not is
also required to be tested.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh, appearing for the
3 913.odt
victim, opposed the prayers orally as well as by pointing out his reply
filed on record. He submitted that the applicant has committed heinous
crime. He disrobed victim who was only of ten years at the time of
incident. He further submitted that the applicant and the victim are
residing in the same locality. He invited my attention to the testimony of
the victim and contended that no fruitful cross-examination was done. He
thus submitted that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal.
6. Learned APP Ms. Deshmukh, also supported the stand taken
by Mr. Deshmukh, and has invited my attention to the witnesses
examined by the prosecution more particularly P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. She
submitted that the age was properly proved and the offence on record
would reveal that at the time of incident victim was minor.
7. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through
the record of the case and have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced. At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that
the sentence imposed upon the applicant is of three years. He has already
undergone the sentence of nine months. After his release on bail, he did
not misuse his liberty and co-operated for early completion of trial. He
has also deposited the fine amount. So far as contention of Mr.
Deshmukh, that the applicant and the victim are residing in the same
locality, and therefore, there is every possibility that the victim can be
4 913.odt
threatened, suffice it to say that when the applicant was on bail, no such
complaint was made. If the applicant misuses his liberty, the appropriate
remedy is provided in law.
8. It is further pertinent to mention here that as rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that all the offences are
intention based offences, the intention will have to be tested in the
backdrop of the testimony and the victim and another witness.
Considering the fact that after pronouncement of judgment by the trial
Court, applicant surrendered to the custody, and thereafter, preferred an
application for bail before the trial Court , which was allowed, I am of the
opinion that decision on appeal will take its own time, and therefore, the
present application is required to be allowed. There is one more fact.
Perusal of judgment, shows that the question of appreciation of evidence
in the form of 164 statement and the document showing date of birth will
have to be tested independently. Thus, it can be said that the applicant has
arguable case in appeal. In the aforesaid background, present application
is allowed.
9. The sentence imposed by Additional Sessions Judge - 2,
Gangakhed, in Sessions Case No. 04/2021 dated 01.12.2025, convicting
the applicant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354,
354-A, 354-B of the IPC, and Section 8 and 12 of Protection of Children
5 913.odt
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is hereby suspended till final hearing of
the appeal. Applicant shall be released on bail on same terms and
conditions as were imposed by the trial Court.
10. Mr. Deshmukh, has in a able manner assisted this Court and
has invited my attention to the various pieces of evidence. Due to his able
assistance, the matter could be decided within a short span. In that view
of the matter, his fees be quantified by the Legal Aid, Sub-Committee,
High Court, Aurangabad, as per rules.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SPC
