Allowed

Manik Chokhaji Khillare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2023IA/3793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought bail pending the final disposal of a criminal appeal against conviction under sections 509 IPC and Sections 12/11 POCSO. The High Court granted bail, noting the short sentence, prior bail during trial, and lack of satisfactory explanation for the delayed FIR.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties during pendency of Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2022.

Manik Chokhaji Khillare Vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3793 OF 2022

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2022

¶7

Manik Chokhaji Khillare

¶8

.... Applicant

¶9

 versus

¶10

State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Respondents

¶11

Mr. Roshan Hule i/b. R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicant.

¶12

Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Shailesh Ghag (Appointed) Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 24th JANUARY, 2023

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of

¶17

the Applicant’s Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2022. The Applicant

¶18

was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (POCSO) vide his Judgment and Order dated
26/09/2022 passed in Sessions Case (POCSO) No.37 of 2020.

¶19

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.25 16:25:23 +0530

¶20

The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 509 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 12 r/w 11

¶21

Nesarikar

¶22

2 / 4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt

¶23

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He
was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.

¶24

2. Heard Mr. Roshan Hule, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Shailesh Ghag, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the

¶26

sentence imposed on the Applicant is short. The Applicant was
on bail during trial. Even after his conviction he was granted bail
u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. He has not misused that liberty. He submitted
that the Applicant is falsely implicated because of some financial
transaction between the victim’s family and the Applicant’s
family. The Applicant was the maternal uncle of the victim. He
submitted that there are no corroborative pieces of evidence.
The FIR is lodged after two days and no explanation is offered.

¶27

3 / 4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 as well as

¶29

learned APP opposed this application. They submitted that the
incident was repeated with two victims. Therefore the Applicant
does not deserve any sympathy for consideration of bail pending
his Appeal.

¶30

5. I have considered these submissions. The points raised
by both the sides will have to be decided at the final hearing
stage. However, the sentence imposed is short. The Appeal is not
likely to be decided within that short period. The Applicant was
on bail during trial. Even after his conviction he was granted bail
for a limited period. There are no allegations of misuse of that
liberty. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Applicant
can be granted bail during pendency of the Appeal.

¶31

6. Hence, the following order :

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(i)During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2022, the Applicant is

¶34

4 / 4 25-IA-3793-22-IN-APEAL-1124-22.odt

¶35

directed to be released on bail on his furnishing
P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶36

(ii) The Applicant shall not cause any harassment to any of the victims or their families.

¶37

(iii) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Manik Chokhaji Khillare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Chokhaji Khillare v. 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

Santosh Baban Bagal Vs State of Maharashtra

Baliram Dagdu Bhokare Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajeev Kumar S/O N. K. Prasad Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray Ganpat Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.