Allowed

Laxman Walya Tandel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2022IA/1340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an interim application for suspension of sentence and bail for an applicant convicted under IPC 354 and POCSO. Considering medical grounds of chronic liver cirrhosis, the release was permitted subject to stringent surveillance and non-contact conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 subject to surveillance conditions, non-entry into victim jurisdiction, and prohibition of contacting the victim.

Laxman Walya Tandel Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Osk

¶2

 26-Ia-1340-2022.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1340 OF 2022 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2022

¶7

Laxman Walya Tandel… Applicant/Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents

¶8

Ms.Anjali Patil for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr.R.M. Pethe, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms.Seema Singh, Appointed Advocate to represent Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 4th July 2022.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the

¶12

Applicant on bail.

¶13

2.Applicant is convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘P.O.C.S.O. Act’) and is directed to
further suffer maximum rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay a total
fine of Rs.30,000/- by learned Special Judge under P.O.C.S.O. Act, Greater
Bombay, by its Judgment and Order dated 12th April 2022.

¶14

1/4

¶15

Osk 26-Ia-1340-2022.odt

¶16

3.Learned Advocate for Applicant submitted that, the Applicant is
suffering from chronic liver cirrhosis and was taking treatment at Mumbai in a
hospital of his choice. She submitted that, even the medical condition of the
Applicant in jail is not satisfactory, which fact can be discern from the Affidavit
dated 26th June 2022 filed by the Chief Medical Officer, Nashik Road Central
Prison. She further submitted that, the Applicant was on bail during the
pendency of the Trial and there is no report of breach of the conditions
imposed upon him. She therefore submitted that, as the sentence imposed
upon the Applicant being a short terms sentence be suspended and he may be
released on bail during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶17

4.Perusal of record indicates that, it is the allegation against the
Applicant that, on 18th February 2017 in afternoon at about 2:00 pm,
Applicant called victim girl, who was aged about 10 years on the date of
incident in his house and had kissed her on her lips and hugged her. The said
fact was told by the concerned victim on the next day i.e. 19th February 2017
to Respondent No.2 i.e. mother of victim and thereafter the present crime is
registered. Said fact has been narrated by the Trial Court in its para Nos.2(b)
& (c) of its impugned Judgment and Order dated 12th April 2022. Apart from
the said fact the record indicates that, the Applicant has been diagnosed as
‘decompensated liver cirrhosis’. The said fact is mentioned by the Chief
Medical Officer, Nashik Road Central Prison in his Affidavit dated 26th June

¶18

2/4

¶19

Osk 26-Ia-1340-2022.odt

¶20

2022.

¶21

5.The sentence imposed upon the Applicant is five years of rigorous
imprisonment. Possibility of hearing the present Appeal on its own merits in
near future is remote.

¶22

In view of the above and after taking into consideration the
allegations made against the Applicant, this Court is of the opinion that,
during the pendency of the present Appeal, substantive sentence imposed
upon the Applicant can be suspended and he can be released on bail.

¶23

6.At this stage, learned Advocate appointed to represent
Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Applicant was residing in the same
vicinity and is known to the victim. She submitted that, if the Applicant is
released on bail, there is every possibility that the Applicant may threaten the
minor victim. Said apprehension of the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2
can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon him.

¶24

7. Hence, the following Order :-

¶25

(i)Applicant/Accused be released on bail in POCSO
Special Case No.339 of 2017 arising out of C.R.
No.27 of 2017 registered with Colaba Police Station,
District Mumbai on his furnishing P.R. bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like
amount.

¶26

3/4

¶27

 26-Ia-1340-2022.odt

¶28

Osk

¶29

(ii) Applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail for a period of 12 weeks and during the said period he is directed to comply with the condition of furnishing sureties as per clause (i) herein-above.

¶30

(iii) After his release from jail and till final disposal of present Appeal, Applicant shall not enter jurisdiction of Colaba Police Station except for marking his presence as directed herein below.

¶31

(iv) After his release from jail and till final disposal of present Appeal, Applicant is directed to attend Colaba Police Station on every first Monday of the month initially for a period of 1 year and thereafter on every first Monday of every 3^rd month, i.e. 4 times in a year.

¶32

(v) Applicant shall not contact/or threaten the Respondent No.2 and/or prosecutrix.

¶33

8.

¶34

Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

[A.S. GADKARI, J.]

¶36

Digitally signed by OMKAR OMKAR SHIVAHAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN KUMBHAKARN Date: 2022.07.05 14:31:16 +0530

¶37

4/4

Laxman Walya Tandel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Walya Tandel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Chandrakant @ Sudhir Bhaskar Parab and Anr. Vs Sunita Chandrakant Parab and Anr.

Mr. Praveen Kannan Vs Niharika Praveen Kannan and Anr.

Rakhma Kalu Vaity and Anr. Vs Vina Suresh Vaity and Ors.

Pradeep Dhanrajmal Ailani Vs Deepak Sunderdas Talreja and Anr.

Pradeep Dhanrajmal Ailani Vs Deepak Sunderdas Talreja and Anr.

Kalam Ahmed Nasir Ahmed Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.