Allowed

Sunil Somnath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2017APPA/1082/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for bail pending retrial or further proceedings, the High Court entertained an application from an applicant convicted under POCSO and IPC sections for raping a minor who has since turned 18. Finding the prosecution evidence weak due to witness hostility and verifying the bonafide intent of the parties to marry, the Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on Rs.25,000 bond with one or two sureties of like amount; report to police quarterly.

Sunil Somnath Rathod Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1-appa-1082-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1082 OF 2017

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2016

¶5

Sunil Somnath Rathod …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, Adv. for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the State-Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : A. A. SAYED AND SARANG V KOTWAL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12 SEPTEMBER, 2017

¶12

P. C.:

¶13

This is an Application for suspension of sentence and

¶14

enlargement on bail of the Applicant, who was an Accused before the Special Judge, Solapur. By judgment and order

¶15

dated 8.10.2015 the Trial Court has convicted the Applicant for

¶16

the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) IPC and under

¶17

Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

¶18

Devendra 1 / 4

¶19

1-appa-1082-2017.doc

¶20

and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 1 year. He was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 315 and 316 IPC, and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 1 year.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has pointed

¶22

out that the Applicant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship, however, the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time. He submitted that the prosecutrix Supriya has become major on 1^st July 2017. A copy of School Leaving Certificate is annexed to the Application. It is submitted that the Applicant and prosecutrix have decided to perform marriage and the parents of the Applicant and the parents of the prosecutrix are ready to accept them as husband and wife.

¶23

Learned Counsel further pointed out that before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix was declared hostile and she did not support the case of the prosecution. He pointed out that the Applicant was arrested on 10.05.2015 and he is in custody since

¶24

Devendra 2 / 4

¶25

1-appa-1082-2017.doc

¶26

then. He therefore urged that the Applicant be released on bail.

¶27

On 22^nd August 2017, we had interviewed the

¶28

Applicant/Accused, the prosecutrix Supriya as well as the parents of the Applicant in chamber. Today we have interviewed the parents of the prosecutrix. We are satisfied that the desire of Applicant and the prosecutrix (as well as their parents) of performing marriage is bonafide.

¶29

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, we are satisfied that a case is made out to grant bail to the Applicant. Even otherwise, we find that the evidence on behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court is quite weak in as much as the prosecutrix had turned hostile.

¶30

In these circumstances, we pass the following order:-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The Applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- and his furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶33

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station

¶34

Devendra 3 / 4

¶35

1-appa-1082-2017.doc

¶36

where he resides every quarter starting from 1^st October, 2017 at

¶37

11.00 am.

¶38

The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

[SARANG V KOTWAL, J.] [A. A. SAYED, J.]

¶40

Devendra

¶41

4 / 4

Sunil Somnath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Somnath Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sanjay Ashok Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munir Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India and Anr.

Abhishek Sureshkumar Singh @ Harshu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattu Tatyaba Karche and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Somnath Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Bapuso Sasne Vs the State of Maharashtra