Dismissed

Subhash Prakashchand Zawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2019APPA/585/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The judicial appr<>treated a bail application by an applicant convicted under the POCSO Act. The court considered medical evidence of injuries on the child victim and rejected the claim that the incident did not occur at the applicant's residence. The application was dismissed as no case for bail was made out due to the prima facie evidentiary strength against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and release on bail is rejected and disposed of.

Subhash Prakashchand Zawar Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

appa-585-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.585/2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.967/2018

¶5

SUBHASH PRAKASHCHAND ZAWAR )… APPLICANT.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…. RESPONDENT.

¶8

Mr.Rahul Kate i/b Raju D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/accused on bail, during pedency of Appeal.

¶12

Applicant/accused is convicted for the ofence

¶13

punishable under Section 6 of the ‘Protection of Children from

¶14

Chitra Sonawane 1/4

¶15

appa-585-2019.doc

¶16

Sexual Ofences Act, 2012’ and he is sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for 15 years, in default to pay fne of Rs.5,000/- and in default to sufer simple imprisonment for six months.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for applicant/accused. He argued that nobody has deposed about alleged incident having being taken place at the house of the applicant/accused. Father of the victim female child is not examined though, according to the case of prosecution, victim was taken by applicant/accused in presence of her father. Evidence of defence witness, who happens to be wife of applicant/accused shows that, she was at the house throughout. Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled for bail.

¶18

Learned APP vehemently opposed the application.

¶19

Evidence of the mother of the victim female child, who happens to be 3 ½ years of age, unerringly points out that, the victim female child was returned by applicant/accused.

¶20

Chitra Sonawane 2/4

¶21

appa-585-2019.doc

¶22

Evidence of PW 5 Dr.Prashant Dattatray Metkar, Medical Officer, Bytco Hospital, Nashik shows that, soon thereafter he noticed injury marks on 10 areas on body of victim female child. Those areas include both buttocks, perineal area including labia majora and entire perineal. Fresh bleeding was noticed on left labia majora and inner side of perineal. Applying mouth to the vagina of a child, makes out an ofence of penetrative assault.

¶23

In case in hand, bite marks were found present on all over body of the victim female child, including her vagina. Soon prior to this medical fnding, she was in company of applicant/accused. In her evidence, the victim female child attributed these injuries to applicant/accused.

¶24

In this view of the matter, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the following order.

¶25

:ORDER:

¶26

Application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶28

Chitra Sonawane 3/4

¶29

appa-585-2019.doc

¶30

Chitra Sonawane 4/4

Subhash Prakashchand Zawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Prakashchand Zawar 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

Prakash Jagannath Sadamate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Gani Mujavar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Gani Mujavar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Moreshwar Mahadeo Kane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhondu Maruti Zapade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tatu Mavji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra