Allowed

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Bombay HC8 Feb 2022APPA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment orders the release of an appellant, previously convicted under IPC and POCSO, on bail pending the hearing of his criminal appeal. The court noted the appellant was on bail during trial and after conviction without breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed and disposed of; appellant ordered released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount.

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

905apeal67.22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL APEAL NO. 67/2022

¶5

(Akshay S/o Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. Vivek Awchat, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶8

CORAM:- SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

¶9

DATED :- 08.02.2022

¶10

Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.

¶11

2.Heard.

¶12

3. Admit .

¶13

4. Learned APP waives service for nonapplicant/State.

¶14

5.Call for record and proceeding in Special
(Child) Case No. 85/2016.

¶15

6.The Investigating Officer is directed to
intimate the respondent No. 2 about filing of this appeal.

¶16

Gohane

¶17

2 905apeal67.22.odt

¶18

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 102/2022

¶19

1.Perused the application. The applicant was
prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 363,
366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO
Act’). He is held guilty and convicted for offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- on each count, in default,
he is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months.

¶20

2.It is contended that during pendency of the
trial, the applicant was on bail. It is also contended that
after conviction, the applicant is released on bail for a
period of one month. The learned counsel for the
applicant submits that applicant will attend the hearing
of this appeal regularly, he will not abscond. He submits
that the sentence imposed on applicant be suspended.

¶21

3.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP on behalf of the State. It appears that the
applicant was on bail during trial. There are no
allegations about breach of condition of bail. The
applicant was also released on bail after conviction. The
appeal may not be heard within short period, therefore

¶22

Gohane

¶23

3 905apeal67.22.odt

¶24

the applicant is required to be released on bail. Hence, I
pass following order:-

¶25

(I)Application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶26

(II)The applicant – Akshay S/o Dnyaneshwar
Rankhamb, he is ordered to be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in
the like amount with a condition that he will attend
hearing of this appeal regularly.

¶27

 (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J)

¶28

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARATGOHANE BHARAT Date: GOHANE 2022.02.09 16:36:47 +0530

¶29

Gohane

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal @ Kundan S/O Dhammapal @ Sunil Gopnarayan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Midc Tq. and Dist.Akola

Vijaykumar S/O. Vasudev Yergude Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sindewahi Tq. Sindewahi Dist. Chandrapur

Khilesh S/O Bijendra Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Swapnil S/O Gopinath Pawar and 3 Others Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Anjangaon Tq. Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amravati

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane Vs Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3