Allowed

Sandeep Nagin Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2018APPA/81/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding injuries to a child, the single judge considered evidence regarding the timeline of the altercation. The court suspended the substantive sentence and ordered the applicant's release on bail pending the hearing of the appeal, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicant released on bail executing P.R. Bond and furnishing surety of Rs.15,000/- each.

Sandeep Nagin Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9-APPA-81-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2018

¶5

SANDEEP NAGIN PATEL )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendeny of the appeal filed by him. He is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 75

¶14

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. On each count, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and that of 3 years respectively.

¶15

avk 1/4

¶16

9-APPA-81-2018.doc

¶17

2 Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant/accused as well as the learned APP. The learned advocate for the applicant/accused drew my attention to the evidence of PW8 Dr.Choudhari as well as that of PW2 Sangita Sakpal to demonstrate that victim child Subidha was with PW2 Sangita Sakpal up to 13^th October 2016, when the child suffered injuries.

¶18

3 The learned APP opposed the application by contending that as PW2 Sangita Sakpal is illiterate, much importance cannot be given to such discrepancy.

¶19

4 I have considered the rival submissions and also perused copies of deposition of prosecution witnesses as well as the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence.

¶20

5 PW8 Dr.Chaudhari had treated the victim child named Subidha on 13^th October 2016 at his hospital and found the child

¶21

avk 2/4

¶22

9-APPA-81-2018.doc

¶23

to have suffered brain injury as well as other injuries. In her cross-examination, PW2 Sangita Sakpal – mother of the victim child, has deposed that, from 1^st October 2016 to 13^th October 2016, she was staying at the place of her mother along with her daughter and it was on 14^th October 2016, she met the applicant/accused.

¶24

6 As stated earlier, the victim child was found to have suffered injuries on 13^th October 2016. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it will have to be decided as to whether the applicant/accused was the author of those injuries or somebody else had caused those injuries.

¶25

7 The applicant/accused was on bail during oendency of the trial and short sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him. The appeal may not be heard within five years, considering the pendency of the appeals before this court. Hence, the order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The application is allowed.

¶28

avk 3/4

¶29

9-APPA-81-2018.doc

¶30

ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant/accused is suspended and the applicant/accused is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in like amount.

¶31

iii)As a condition of this order, the applicant/accused should not repeat commission of similar offence in future.

¶32

iv)The application is disposed of.

¶33

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶34

avk 4/4

Sandeep Nagin Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Nagin Patel 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

Suresh Baburao Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devi Hemraj Nakum Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Gorakh Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs Ramnath Vishnu Naik and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Dasharath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Biovision Corporation Thorugh Partner Siddhart Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra