Allowed

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Aug 2017APPA/1060/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted an application to suspend the execution of the substantive sentence imposed in a POCSO case pending the final disposal of the appeal on merits, subject to conditions including the furnishing of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

The execution of substantive sentence in Special (POCSO) Case No.25 of 2014 is suspended till the disposal of the Appeal on merits, subject to furnishing of bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety an

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Kavita 905-apln 1060-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1060 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.632 OF 2017

¶4

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra.

¶5

...Applicant ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Tahera R. Qureshi for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶9

DATED: 10^th AUGUST, 2017.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

By this application, the applicant has sought suspension of execution of sentence pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. I have perused the records and considered the submissions.

¶13

The Applicant herein was the accused in Special (POCSO) Case No.25 of 2014 by judgment dated 16^th June, 2017 passed by the Special Judge, Thane. The Applicant/Accused has been held guilty of offence under Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶14

1/3

¶15

Kavita 905-apln 1060-17.doc

¶16

The learned Counsel for the Applicant/Accused submitted that the fine amount has already been deposited before the Special Court,Thane. The Applicant was on bail pending trial. There is nothing to indicate that he had violated the terms and conditions of the bail. It is also to be noted that the Applicant/Accused has been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment of three years. The Appeal is of the year 2017. Considering the large pendency of the cases, the Appeal is not likely to come up for final hearing at least in next couple of years. Hence, rejection of prayer to suspend the execution of sentence will result in the applicant undergoing the imprisonment even before his Appeal is decided on merits. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed on following terms:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶19

(ii) The execution of substantive sentence in Special (POCSO) Case No.25 of 2014 is suspended till the disposal of the Appeal on merits.

¶20

(iii) The Applicant shall furnish bail bond of Rs.15,000/-(Rs. Fifteen thousand only) with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special (POCSO) Court, Pune.

¶21

2/3

¶22

Kavita 905-apln 1060-17.doc

¶23

(iv) The Applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as local address, if any, and shall intimate change of address, if any, to the Investigating Officer, as well as to the concerned Court;

¶24

(v) The Applicant shall not interfere with the victim in any manner.

¶25

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶26

3/3

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juber Nasir Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivam Arjun Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harischandra Sakharam Kasare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prasad Balasaheb Sakore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Bhagwan Padwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadashiv Baburao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra