Allowed

Dinesh Harji Malkari v. the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Bombay HC11 Aug 2017APPA/591/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction under IPC and POCSO. The High Court suspended the execution of the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing a bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of execution of substantive sentence pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties.

Dinesh Harji Malkari Vs the Union Territory of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Megha 6_appa_591_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.355 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Dinesh Harji Malkari ...Appellant Versus The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Sameer P. Nangre for the Applicant.

¶6

Ms Purnima H. Kantharia PP for the Respondent No.1-Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

¶7

CORAM :SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶8

DATED: 11^th AUGUST, 2017.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

By this application, the Applicant has sought suspension of execution of substantive sentence pending the appeal. The Applicant has been held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine upto Rs.200/in respect of each of these offences. The sentence of imprisonment is to run concurrently.

¶11

Megha

¶12

1/3

¶13

Megha 6_appa_591_2017.doc

¶14

The learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has already deposited the fine amount and the learned Judge has suspended the execution of sentence of imprisonment till filing of the appeal. The maximum period of sentence awarded is 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 in the next couple of years. Hence, rejection of prayer to suspend the execution of substantive sentences will result the Applicant undergoing the imprisonment even before his Appeal is decided on merits. Considering the above facts as well as the nature of offence in my considered view execution of substantive sentence needs to be suspended pending hearing and final disposal of the Appeal. Hence, the following order:-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶17

(ii) The execution of substantive sentence in Sessions

¶18

Case No.7 of 2014 is suspended till hearing and final disposal of the Appeal subject to the Applicant furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one or two sureties to the like

¶19

amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Dadra

¶20

Megha

¶21

2/3

¶22

Megha 6_appa_591_2017.doc

¶23

and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa.

¶24

(iii) The Applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as

¶25

local address, if any, and shall intimate change of address, if any, to the Investigating Officer, as well as to the concerned Court.

¶26

(iv) The Applicant shall not interfere with the victim in

¶27

any manner.

¶28

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶29

Megha

¶30

3/3

Dinesh Harji Malkari v. the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Harji Malkari v. the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

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

Prasad Balasaheb Sakore Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Vilas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kantaben Ramji Kharvi Vs the State of Maharashtra