[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sangita Manohar Ahire vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 December, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2025:BHC-AS:54745
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Interim Application No.4142 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2025
Sangita Manohar Ahire
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household
R/o: A/p. Vitave, Taluka Chandwad,
District: Nashik ... Applicant
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Chandwad Police Station,
Nashik)
2. A.B.C.
Age: 17 years, Occ: Education
Through Chandwad Police Station
District: Nashik ... Respondents
----
Mr Dheeraj Patil, for the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for respondent No.1/ State.
Mr Namitkumar S Pansare, i/b Mr Rushikesh Kale, for
respondent No.2.
MAMTA
AMAR KALE
Digitally signed by
MAMTA AMAR KALE
Date: 2025.12.12
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
18:33:10 +0530
Date: 12 December 2025.
P.C.:
Heard Mr Dheeraj Patil, the learned Counsel for the
applicant, Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/ State, and Mr
Namitkumar Pansare, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
Page 1 of 6
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 23:23:36 :::
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
of respondent No.2/ victim.
2. The applicant (accused No.3) faced trial in Special
POCSO Case No.32 of 2025 before the Court of Special Judge
and Additional Sessions Judge, at Niphad, Nashik, for offences
punishable under Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 70(2), 99,
127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, and 49 read with 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'); Sections 4, 6, 8, 12
and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 ('POCSO'); and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)
(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Atrocities Act').
3. By a judgment and order dated 15 October 2025, while
the applicant was acquitted of other offences, the applicant
stood convicted for offences punishable under Sections 118(1)
and 127(2) of the BNS. The applicant was sentenced as follows:
(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (with default stipulations) for the offence
punishable under Section 118(1) of the BNS, and (ii) to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (with default stipulations) for the offence punishable
under Section 127(2) of the BNS. These sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Page 2 of 6
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 23:23:36 :::
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
4. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before this
Court and, by the present application, seeks suspension of the
sentence and release on bail.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant,
highlighting the alleged shortcomings in the prosecution's case,
contends that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses lacks
credibility and fails to inspire confidence. It is submitted that
since the applicant was on bail throughout the trial, she should
receive the same treatment during the pendency of the appeal.
The applicant has been in custody for more than nine months
of the three-year term and is willing to cooperate fully with the
appeal proceedings, and prays for her release on bail pending
the outcome of the appeal.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecution representing
respondent No.1/ State and the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2/ the victim, opposing the applicant's
request, jointly refer to the seriousness of the charge on which
the applicant has been convicted and argued that the evidence
on record strongly supports the prosecution's case and does not
warrant the grant of bail.
Page 3 of 6
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 23:23:36 :::
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
contentions and perused the records.
8. It is a well-settled position in law that the appellate Court
can leniently consider a convict's request for suspension of the
sentence in cases where the term of the sentence is fixed except
in exceptional circumstances or where restrictions under any
statute apply. If the sentence imposed cannot be suspended, the
appellate Court must endeavour to adjudicate the appeal on
merits, especially in cases where there is a plea for expeditious
resolution. Failing to do so could jeopardise the appellant's
statutory rights due to the passage of time. In situations where
the appellate Court recognises that practical circumstances may
hinder the prompt resolution of the appeal, it becomes essential
for the Court to exercise heightened diligence in deliberating
on sentence suspension. This ensures that the appeal process
remains viable, meaningful, and effective. Additionally, when
granting bail, the appellate Court has the discretion to impose
certain conditions. A profitable reference in this regard can be
made to the decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of
Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421.
9. It appears that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is
a short one. While this Court acknowledges the arguments
Page 4 of 6
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 23:23:36 :::
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
presented by the learned APP and the learned Counsel for
respondent No.2 regarding the seriousness of the offence and
the current post-conviction stage of the proceedings, it is
essential to recognise that the applicant has already served more
than nine months out of the total sentence of three years. The
appeal has been filed in 2025 and is unlikely to be heard
immediately due to the pendency of the older appeals.
Moreover, there are no circumstances or any statutory
prohibition that warrant the refusal of the relief of suspension
of the sentence to the applicant. In these circumstances, a case
is made out for suspension of the sentence and release on bail
during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The sentence imposed upon the
applicant vide judgment and order dated
15 October 2025, passed by the Court of
Special Judge and Additional Sessions
Judge, at Niphad, Nashik, in Special
POCSO Case No.32 of 2025, stands
suspended during the pendency of the
appeal.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on
bail upon executing a PR Bond of
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
Sweety 901-ia-4142-2025 in
apeal-1084-2025.docx
Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more
sureties in the like amount.
10. The interim application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
12 December 2025
