Vikas Rohidas S/O Dilip Gonekar v. State Of Maha Thr Pos, Kalmeshwar

-1- 40.APPA.864.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C RIMINAL APPLICATION (APP A ) NO.

OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2024 Vikas @ Rohidas s/o Dilip Gonekar Vs.

The State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S.O. P.S. Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur ********************************************************************************************** Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders ********************************************************************************************** Mr. T.A. Mirza, Advocate (appointed) to represent the Appellant. Mr. P.P. Pendke, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2024.

.

Heard learned advocate for the appellant/accused and learned APP for the respondent/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

2.

This is an application for suspension of substantive sentence. The appellant/accused is held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the IPC. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

-2- 40.APPA.864.2024.odt 3.

Learned advocate appointed to represent the appellant/accused submitted that proper inquiry was not conducted before framing the charge to try the appellant as an adult. It is submitted that there was no compliance of Section 19(1)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, "J.J. Act") read with Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (for short "Model Rules, 2016"). Learned advocate submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits.

4.

Learned APP submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board in an inquiry conducted under Section 15 of the J.J. Act recorded a finding that the appellant was mentally and physically capable to commit the offence and possessed the ability to understand the consequences of his act. Learned APP submitted that, when the matter was referred to the Children's Court by the J.J.B., it was not necessary to conduct inquiry.

5.

On going through the record and proceedings, I am satisfied that this matter is required to be heard on merits. The point raised by the learned advocate for the appellant deserves consideration. It is undisputed that, before framing the charge, separate order was not passed by the Children's Court under Section 19(1)(i) of the J.J. Act. In my view, considering the fact that this appeal would take its own time, it would be just and proper to grant the prayer

-3- 40.APPA.864.2024.odt for suspension of substantive sentence. Hence, the following order:

6.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

i] The substantive sentence shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

ii] Appellant/accused - Vikas @ Rohidas s/o. Dilip Gonekar be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount.

iii] The bail before the trial Court.

7.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (G. A. SANAP, J.) Vijay Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/11/2024 21:13:42