[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Raju Chandramani Dhotre vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:52253
S.S.Kilaje 29A-IA-1333-25 (CR) (corrected).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1333 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2025
Raju Chandramani Dhotre ... Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondent
...............
Ms. Mallika Sharma a/w. Ms. Asha Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for the State.
Ms. Gunjan Mangla a/w. Tithi Jadhadi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Digitally signed
PSI -Ms. Deepali Pawase, RCF Police Station present.
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2025.12.01
KILAJE 18:11:41
PSI - Mr. Pradeep Shinde, RCF Police Station present.
+0700
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 27th NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :
1. This application is for enlargement of bail of the appellant and
suspension of substantive sentence passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.
1073 of 2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Judgment and Order
dated 18.12.2024, whereby he is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years with fine.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
appellant has already undergone 5½ years of sentence. On merit it is
argued that as per the case of the prosecution the alleged sexual assault on
the victim is done since year 2016 and report came to be lodged after 4
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 1st December, 2025.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:47:54 :::
S.S.Kilaje 29A-IA-1333-25 (CR) (corrected).doc
years in 2020. It is submitted that there are material inconsistencies in
the statement of the victim which makes his testimony unreliable. She
further drew attention of Court to the medical evidence on record which
indicates that no sexual assault as alleged has been caused on the victim.
It is argued that here in this case, the prosecution claimed that repeated
anal sex has been committed by the accused with the victim and in such
circumstances, it is improbable that there would be no medical evidence to
support such case.
3. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the
application, firstly citing the seriousness of the crime and secondly relying
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr.1 It is submitted that having regard to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be open for this
Court to pass order of release of the appellant on bail only on the ground
that the version of the victim is not supported by the medical evidence.
4. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the proposition of
law that victim's testimony if found free from doubt, can become sole basis
of conviction of an accused. When the same is not unimpeachable, Court
should look for corroboration. At the same time, the Court is required to
take into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Here in this case, the victim claimed to have been sexually assaulted by the
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1641
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 1st December, 2025.
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:47:54 :::
S.S.Kilaje 29A-IA-1333-25 (CR) (corrected).doc
accused for a period of about four years and on multiple occasion he was
subjected to anal sex. Even if the Court ignores the delay caused in the
lodging of the report on the ground that it might be difficult for the boy to
disclose this even to his mother immediately, it is not permissible to ignore
the material evidence on record. Here in this case as per the case of the
prosecution the victim was subjected to multiple episodes of anal sex. In
such circumstances, this Court finds substance in the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant that it would be practically impossible
that there would be no injury (even old injury) at all on the private part of
the victim. This cannot be ignored in the light of the fact that the offence
came to be registered after four years of its beginning and hence this Court
finds substance in contradiction of learned counsel for appellant about
possibility of implication.
5. The appellant has already undergone 5½ years of sentence, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant indicates that
the appellant may have a reasonable chance of success in the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions makes statement
that the appellant would not enter the local jurisdiction of RCF Police
station till decision of the appeal. This undertaking will take care of the
apprehension of the victim and prosecution.
7. In view of above, I pass following order:
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 1st December, 2025.
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:47:54 :::
S.S.Kilaje 29A-IA-1333-25 (CR) (corrected).doc
ORDER
i. The application stands allowed.
ii. The substantive sentence imposed against the appellant
by the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024 passed in
Special (POCSO) Case No. 1073 of 2020 stands
suspended.
iii. The appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
iv. Not to contact victim or family members in any manner
whatsoever. Breach of any condition may result to take
the appellant in the custody forthwith.
v. Observation made above are prima facie in nature and
would not affect rights of parties at final hearing of
appeal.
8. The Interim Application is disposed of.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 1st December, 2025.
