Allowed

Rajendra Ramchandra Wavle v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016APPA/1391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 CrPC during pendency of criminal appeal allowed. Court refused final hearing due to backlogged appeals but granted suspension given short sentence and clean trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

The Application allowed; substantive sentences of imprisonment suspended; applicant released on similar bail with fresh bonds.

Rajendra Ramchandra Wavle Vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/2

¶2

902-APPA-1391-2016.odt

¶3

Vikrant Elgire

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1391 OF 2016 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2016

¶7

Shri. Rajendra Ramchandra Wavale ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir for the Applicant. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 22^nd November 2016

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This is an Application filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendency of the present Appeal.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused. He argued that the applicant/accused was on bail during pendency of the trial and a short sentence was imposed on him for recording his guilt for the offence punishable under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the Act of 2012).

¶13

The learned APP is stating that he wants to read the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case.

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

2/2

¶16

902-APPA-1391-2016.odt

¶17

Vikrant Elgire

¶18

Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the sentence as well as the evidence of the minor victim girl. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the applicant/accused had put hand of the minor victim girl in his full pants. The applicant/accused is, therefore, held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the Act of 2012. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and similar sentence is imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2012. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Undisputedly, the applicant/accused was on bail during pendency of the trial. Considering the pendency of the Appeals of under-trial prisoners before this Court, it is not possible for this Court to take up the instant appeal for final hearing. Considering the short sentence imposed on the appellant/applicant and as he was on bail during pendency of the trial and that he has not misused his liberty during pendency of the trial, the Application needs to be allowed with the following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

I The Application is allowed.

¶21

II The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the applicant/accused are suspended and he is released on similar bail with fresh bonds.

¶22

2 of 2

Rajendra Ramchandra Wavle v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Ramchandra Wavle v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Subrato Banerji and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bapu Devaji Waghela Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabhakar C. Gawans Vs Union of India and Anr.

Baban Pandurang Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Bhauisaheb Bargale Vs Mahaveer Satyappa Chougule and Anr.

Parmeshwar Arjun Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra