Bombay High Court
Narayan Maina Yadav @ Samir Asif Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 August, 2024
Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
2024:BHC-AS:31124-DB 16-ia-2650-2024.doc
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2650 OF 2024
[For Bail and Suspension of Sentence]
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.718 OF 2022
Narayan Maina Yadav @ Samir Asif Khan ] Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents
.....
Ms. Shradha Sawant, for Applicant.
Ms. Kranti T. Hiwrale, A.P.P, for Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.
DATE : 2nd August, 2024.
P.C:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Interim Application, the applicant seeks suspension of
his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of his aforesaid appeal.
SHAILAJA Digitally signed by
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT 1 of 4
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
Date: 2024.08.06
HALKUDE 14:29:24 +0530
16-ia-2650-2024.doc
3. The applicant vide judgment and order dated 11 th April, 2019
passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Greater Bombay in
POCSO Special Case No.364 of 2016 has been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and is
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.6,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for thirty days.
For the offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal
Code (for short "I.P.C"), the applicant has been sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. In view of the
punishment awarded under the POCSO Act, no separate
punishment was awarded under Section 376 (2) of the I.P.C and
under section 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. Perused the papers, and in particular, the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 i.e the prosecutrix. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she
was aged about twelve years when the applicant started sexually
assaulting her, which sexual assault continued for about four years.
P.W.1 has further stated that she had witnessed on one occasion,
P.W.2 and the applicant lying in a naked condition. There is no
2 of 4
16-ia-2650-2024.doc
cross-examination of P.W.1 on certain material aspects i.e with
respect to the sexual assault.
5. A perusal of the evidence of P.W2 - second prosecutrix also
shows that she was aged about ten years at the relevant time. She,
too, has stated how the applicant sexually assaulted her. She has
given details of sexual assault.
6. In fact, the cross-examination of P.W.2 itself is damaging to
the applicant, considering some of the questions which have been
asked in the cross-examination to P.W.2, in particular, in paragraphs
13 and 14. The applicant is the step father of the prosecutrix i.e
P.W.1 and P.W.2.
7. Considering the seriousness of the crime and the manner in
which, the young girls, who were aged about ten and twelve years at
the relevant time were sexually assaulted by the applicant and
having regard to the evidence on record, we do not think that this is
a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3 of 4
16-ia-2650-2024.doc
8. The application is rejected, however, the hearing of the appeal
is expedited. As soon as the paper-book is ready, the appeal be
added at its appropriate place on the final hearing board.
9. Liberty to mention for fixing date of hearing after the paper-
book is ready.
10. Since the aforesaid application has been filed by the applicant
through the High Court Legal Services Committee, Registry to
communicate the aforesaid order passed today to the applicant, who
is presently lodged in jail.
11. Application is disposed of.
[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]
4 of 4
