Applicants Who Had Already Undergone Imprisonment Are Entitled to Be Released on Bail Till Final Decision of Appeal: Gujarat High Court

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

Excerpt:

The criminal appeal was filed against the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge,  POCSO, Amreli in Special (POCSO) Case No. 17 of 2017 convicted for the offense punishable under section 323 of IPC r/w section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and a fine of Rs.500 was imposed. The appellant being aggrieved by the order challenged it in the case of Rohitbhai Rameshbhai Dobariya v. State of Gujarat (R/Cr.Appeal No.1381/2020).

Brief Facts:

The applicants were mandated punishment under section 323 of IPC to be simple imprisonment of three months, failure to which further extended imprisonment of 15 days and under section 12 of POCSO Act simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.10,000, failure to which would attract imprisonment of 30 days. On such grounds, the applicants were granted maximum imprisonment of six months leading to which applicant no.1 had already undergone punishment of three months and applicant no.2 had already undergone around 45 days.

Applicant’s Arguments:

The counsel for applicants submitted before the Court that the applicants had already filed an application under section 389 of Cr. P.C for the purpose of keeping order in abeyance but the learned Special Judge ordered irrespective of abeyance period of 30 days. Moreover, during the trial proceeding, the applicants were on bail, and therefore in such a situation, sentences passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) order dated 05.12.2020 deserves to be suspended.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The counsel for the respondent argued before the Court that applicants have committed heinous and serious crimes which need to be prevented expeditiously by not allowing suspension of the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge in an order dated 05.12.2020 and if permitted such must be accompanied with appropriate conditions.

Court’s Observations:

The Court observed the argumentation of both parties and was of the opinion that applicant no.1 has successfully sustained three months of punishment in custody and applicant no.2 around 45 days in custody. The court took the reference of Bhagwan Rama Shinde V/s. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 421 which led to the suspension of sentence till the final decision of the appeal will be decided.

Court’s Decision:

The Court concluded that the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge via order dated 05.12.2020 in Special (POCSO) Case No. 17 of 2017 shall remain suspended  and the applicants shall be released on bail till the final decision of the appeal subject to the following conditions:

  1. The applicant shall deposit a bond of Rs.10,000 and surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and furnish full and permanent address along with contact number.
  2. The applicant shall submit a passport if any before the concerned Session Court.

Click here to read full Judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -