Allowed

Amol Bhanudas Parve. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC6 Jun 2017APPLN/2996/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for anticipatory bail and suspension of sentence, the High Court allowed the application, suspended the sentence imposed under sections 376(1), 450, and 506-II of the IPC for rape, cheating, and false charges, and released the applicant on bail pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; the impugned sentence was suspended; the applicant-appellant was released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety.

Amol Bhanudas Parve. Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 Cri.A-2996-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2996 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2016

¶4

Amol Bhanudasrao Parve

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.D.Namde, APP for respondent – State

¶10

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶11

DATED : 6^th JUNE, 2017.

¶12

Order :-

¶13

The appellant - applicant preferred present application seeking relief to suspend sentence imposed on him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2014. Appellant - applicant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under sections 376(1), 450 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). After appreciating the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai held guilty to the accused and imposed resultant sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand) for the offence punishable under section 376 (1) of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and

¶14

2 Cri.A-2996-16

¶15

to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for the offence punishable under section 450 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/(Rupees Two Thousand) for the offence punishable under section 506-II of the IPC.

¶16

Being aggrieved by findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, appellant - applicant preferred appeal to redress his grievance inter-alia filed application to suspend the sentence pending appeal and in the meanwhile he be released on bail.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant vehemently submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and committed error in convicting the applicantaccused for the charge of rape on the prosecutrix. The appellant is youngster of 21 years old. He is earning member of the family. There are old aged parents at home. He has no criminal antecedents. The applicant-appellant was on bail during the trial before the Sessions Court. He has not misused the liberty granted to him. The appellant has also deposited the fine amount imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel prayed to allow the application and suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in

¶18

3 Cri.A-2996-16

¶19

Sessions Case No. 32 of 2014, so also he be released on bail pending the appeal.

¶20

The learned APP raised objections and contends that the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper manner. There is no perversity or error in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. The applicant and prosecutrix both are resident of the same vicinity in the village. Therefore, it would not just and proper to release the appellant on bail and he prayed for rejection of application.

¶21

I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP for the State. I have also perused the findings expressed by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, appellant has held guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(1), 450 and 506-II of the IPC. It is also not in dispute that appellant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty. There were no allegation of tampering of evidence pending the trial before learned Sessions Judge. Obviously, appellant is youngster of 21 years old and there should not be pretrial incarceration by way of punishment. The appellant has a legal right to file appeal against impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence to redress his grievance. In such circumstances, it

¶22

4 Cri.A-2996-16

¶23

would not proper to keep him behind bar pending appeal. I do not find any impediment to allow the application and to release the applicant-appellant on bail pending the appeal.

¶24

In such circumstances, the application is allowed and impugned sentence imposed on the applicant vide judgment and order of conviction dated 07-05-2016, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai is hereby suspended pending the appeal. In the meanwhile, applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount before the learned trial Court. It is stipulated that applicant-appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of learned trial Court without prior permission.

¶25

The criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

[ K. K. SONAWANE ]

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

MTK

Amol Bhanudas Parve. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Bhanudas Parve. 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

Virbahadur S/O. Kulbahadur Gurang @ Thapa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Manikrao Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Prithvichand Vhora and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harshal Madhukar Jadhav Vs Sunil Ramdas Bairagi and Anr.

Dada S/O Dhodiba Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Kisan Malshikhare Vs Sunita Govind Malshikhare and Ors.