Allowed

Nilesh Ramchandra More v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Aug 2017APPA/1158/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application by the appellant, an accused in a POCSO case, to suspend the execution of his sentence pending the disposal of his appeal on merits. The court imposed conditions for fresh bail, restricted interference with the victim, and required disclosure of address and contact details.

What did the court decide?

Execution of sentence suspended till disposal of the appeal on merits, upon furnishing fresh bail bond with a solvent surety and adhering to specified conditions.

Nilesh Ramchandra More Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

20 APPA 1158-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1158 OF 2017 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 678 OF 2017

¶5

Nilesh Ramchandra More

.. Appellant

v/s.

State of Maharashtra

..Respondent

Mr. Aniket U. Nkam a/w. Piyush Toshniwal the Appellant. Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for the Respondent State.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2017.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

By this application, the applicant herein , who was an accused

¶14

in Special POCSO Case No.351 of 2014, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, for offence under Section 11 r/w. 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 has sought suspension execution of sentence pending the final hearing of the

1 of 3

pps

20 APPA 1158-17.doc

appeal on merits.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶20

Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already paid the fine amount before the Special Judge, Pune.

¶21

The sentence imposed is short term imprisonment, coupled with the fact that the appeal is of the year 2017 and is not likely to come up for final hearing in a couple of years due to pendency of old

¶22

cases. Hence, if the sentence is not suspended, the applicant will have to undergo the entire sentence even before his appeal is heard on merits.

¶23

Under the circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of

¶24

prayer clause (a). The execution of sentence is suspended till disposal of the appeal on merits, on the applicant furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions/Special Judge (POSCO) Pune.

¶25

. The applicant shall not interfere in any manner with the victim.

2 of 3

pps

20 APPA 1158-17.doc

. The applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as local

¶30

address if any, and also intimate his contact number to the Investigating Officer as well as in the fresh bail bonds.

¶31

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

pps

Nilesh Ramchandra More v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Ramchandra More 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Vilas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Harji Malkari Vs the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Gajraj Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manda Harishchandra Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dindayal Co-Op. Patsanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.