Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 287 (GUJ)

Jiteshbhai Jayantilal Vaghela v. State of Gujarat

2022-02-16

B.N.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. By preferring this application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the substantive sentence imposed on the applicant by the impugned judgment and orders dated 24.11.2020 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 225 of 2017 by Ld. Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surat and the applicant may be released on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal on his own bond." 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is in judicial custody since 24.11.2020 i.e. since more than one year and he has undergone 18 months (6 months pending trial from 01.06.2017 to 28.11.2017) of sentence out of the total sentence of five years and hence, looking to the pendency of the cases, the captioned appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that the applicant is a reputed Sports Teacher and has received various sports certificates and medals in his career and he has no criminal antecedents regarding any kind of offences. It is further submitted that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred by the applicant would take reasonable time for final hearing and till then, the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court requires to be suspended. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application. 4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the offence is committed by the present applicant. Referring the deposition of the victim, she has also supported the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during the investigation. Hence, it is requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss this application. 5. Referring the deposition of the victim, she has also supported the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during the investigation. Hence, it is requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss this application. 5. Having considered the facts of the case and averments made in the application as well as submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State and for the reasons shown by the applicant in the appeal preferred by the present applicant as well as the applicant was released on bail during the trial and after going through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, no adverse is pointed out against the present applicant. It appears that the appeal preferred by the present applicant would take reasonable time for final disposal and the applicant was on bail and liberty granted to him was not misused by the applicant and no adverse was pointed out by the prosecution in respect of misusing the liberty granted to the applicant as he was on bail. It appears that applicant is in judicial custody since 24.11.2020 since last more than one year and he has undergone 18 months (6 months pending trial from 01.06.2017 to 28.11.2017) of sentence out of the total sentence of five years. It also appears that the applicant is serving as Sport Teacher in the school and has no criminal antecedent regarding any kind of offence. It also appears that the complaint was registered after a delay of almost two years from the date of alleged offence and no satisfactory explanation regarding delay was narrated by the complainant in the FIR. It appears from the testimony of Prosecution Witness No. 5-victim at Exh. 18 that he has not supported any of the four incidents narrated by the victim no. 1 i.e. P.W. No. 4. This Court is of the considered view that judicial custody of the present applicant would not require as the appeal preferred by the present applicant would take considerable period for final disposal. Accordingly, prayer sought for by the applicant in Para-11(A) stands granted. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 225 of 2017 by Ld. Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surat stand suspended qua sentence only till hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 6. Accordingly, prayer sought for by the applicant in Para-11(A) stands granted. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 225 of 2017 by Ld. Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surat stand suspended qua sentence only till hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 6. The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court till hearing and final disposal of the appeal subject to the conditions that applicant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 7. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. 10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Authority as well as learned Sessions Court concerned through email or fax.