Allowed

Vishwanath Rustumrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2021APPLN/1222/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application to suspend the substantive sentence imposed on the applicant under POCSO and IPC offences pending appeal. The Court released the applicant on bail, considering that he was on bail during the trial and the sentence was for a short term.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence suspended; applicant released on bail on his P.R. bond with one surety.

Vishwanath Rustumrao Mundhe Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 CriApln 1222/21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

933 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1222 OF 2021 IN APEAL/295/2021

¶4

VISHWANATH RUSTUMRAO MUNDHE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rathi S.S. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

This is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and to release the applicant on bail.

¶11

The applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 (five) years. The applicant also came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act (POCSO) and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years.

¶12

2 CriApln 1222/21

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in it’s correct perspective and arrived at the wrong findings. It is submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is submitted that considering the short term of sentence and as the applicant was on bail during the trial, substantive sentence imposed against applicant be suspended and applicant be released on bail till final disposal of the appeal.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State submits that the applicant is involved in serious crime of sexual assault on a minor girl aged about 13 years. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the substantive sentence may not be suspended.

¶16

It appears that applicant was in jail from 14^th August, 2017 to 8^th September,2017 during trial and after his conviction on 23^rd March, 2021 he is in jail till today. Admittedly, applicant was on bail during trial. Considering these facts and the short term of sentence, I am inclined to suspend the substantive

¶17

3 CriApln 1222/21

¶18

sentence and release the applicant on bail. In the result, following order is passed :-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

a] Application is allowed.

¶21

b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Hingoli on the applicant in Special (child) Case No. 12 of 2017 is suspended during pendency of the appeal.

¶22

c] Applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount.

¶23

d] Bail before the trial Court.

¶24

( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

¶25

SRM/18/11/21

Vishwanath Rustumrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Rustumrao Mundhe 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

Deepak Prakashdas Bairagi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nita W/O. Suresh Deth Vs Dagdu Shankar Mistri

Nilkath Shankarrao Katkar and Others Vs Mahesh Ananda Patil and Others

Baliram Ashruba Shimple Vs Rajeshri @ Rukhmini D/O. Baliram Shimple (Under Guardian of Respondent No. 3) and Others

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja Vs Jalgaon Consumers Product Vitarak Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Jalgaon and Anr.

Farzhana Parvin W/O Akhlaqkhan Vs Akhlaqkhan S/O Khalilkhan and Another