Tejas Dilip Tirpude vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14933

65.appa.757.25 1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Criminal Application [APPA] No.757 of 2025
in
Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2025

Tejas Dilip Tirpude
vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., P.S. Wardha and another
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant/Respondent No.1.
Ms. Alpana Ingolikar, Advocate for Non-Applicant/Respondent No.2.

CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
DATE : 23rd DECEMBER, 2025.

Heard.

2. The applicant has preferred the present appeal challenging
the judgment and order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Wardha, in Special (Child) Case No.95 of 2019,
whereby the applicant came to be convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(3) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012. The learned Trial Court sentenced the applicant to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,
in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending disposal of
the appeal.
65.appa.757.25 2/6

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that
the applicant has been incarcerated for more than seven years and was
not released on bail either during the course of the trial or thereafter. It
is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective. Learned
Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the deposition of the victim,
wherein she stated that she had accompanied the applicant to different
places for a period exceeding three months and that they resided at the
house of one Jagdish. It is submitted that during the said period, the
victim neither raised any alarm nor made any attempt to seek
assistance from any person.

5. Learned Counsel further pointed out material omissions and
contradictions in the testimony of the victim, as elicited during cross-
examination. Reliance was also placed upon the evidence of the
Medical Officer who examined the victim, wherein it was noted that
the incident was stated to have occurred approximately two months
prior to the medical examination. Though injury to the hymen was
noticed, the medical opinion did not conclusively establish sexual
assault. It is further submitted that the victim was allegedly sexually
exploited by one Jagdish, at whose residence she stayed, and that the
said Jagdish was subsequently killed by one Pawan. Learned Counsel
submits that only after the victim was recovered by the police from
Bhachau, Gujarat, did she allege sexual exploitation by the present
applicant.

6. It is further contended that there are material inconsistencies
in the depositions of other prosecution witnesses as well. On these
grounds, learned Counsel submits that the applicant has an arguable
case on merits with reasonable chances of success in the appeal.
Considering the long incarceration already undergone and the fact that
65.appa.757.25 3/6

the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, suspension of
sentence is sought.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly
opposed the application, submitting that the victim was kidnapped and
repeatedly sexually exploited by the applicant. It is submitted that the
co-accused Jagdish also sexually assaulted the victim at his residence
in Bhachau, Gujarat, in the presence of the applicant, who did not raise
any objection. The learned A.P.P. further submits that the deposition of
the victim reveals that she was subjected to physical assault and
cigarette burns by both the accused persons, which injuries were shown
by the victim to the learned Trial Judge during her testimony and were
duly noted in the judgment.

8. It is further emphasized that the victim was a minor, aged
about 15 years and 10 months, at the time of the incident, and
therefore, under the provisions of the POCSO Act, the issue of consent
is wholly irrelevant. The learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Trial
Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly
convicted the applicant. Hence, it is contended that no case for
suspension of sentence is made out.

9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant
No.2-victim adopted the submissions advanced by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the application, it is
apposite to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 779, in paragraph
10 has held as under :

"One would have expected the High Court hearing an
application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension
65.appa.757.25 4/6

of sentence to examine whether prima facie there was
anything palpable on the record to indicate if the
accused had a fair chance of overturning the
conviction. In Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar
Chaudhary and Another, this Court had the following
to say on the scope of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
"23. The principle underlying the theory of criminal
jurisprudence in our country is that an accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court
of competent jurisdiction. Once the accused is held
guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased. In
the same manner, if the accused is acquitted, then the
presumption of innocence gets further fortified.
24. From perusal of Section 389 CrPC, it is evident that
save and except the matter falling under the category
of sub-section (3) neither any specific principle of law
is laid down nor any criteria has been fixed for
consideration of the prayer of the convict and further,
having a judgment of conviction erasing the
presumption leaning in favour of the accused
regarding innocence till contrary recorded by the court
of competent jurisdiction, and in the aforesaid
background, there happens to be a fine distinction
between the prayer for bail at the pre-conviction as
well as the post-conviction stage viz. Sections 437,
438, 439 and 389(1) CrPC.
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should
be to see as to whether the case presented by the
prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said
to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for
fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid
question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary
corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the
65.appa.757.25 5/6

convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at
the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind
the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the
appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of
acquittal, what is to be looked into is something
palpable To put it in other words, something which is
very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the
basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable.
The appellate court should not reappreciate the
evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to
pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the
case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach."
11. Taking into consideration the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period of incarceration already undergone
by the applicant, the nature of the evidence adduced before the Trial
Court, and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final
hearing in the near future, this Court is of the considered view that the
applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail pending disposal of the appeal.

Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Wardha in Special (Child) Case No.95/201922 is hereby suspended pending final disposal of the appeal.

iii. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

iv. The applicant shall report before the trial Court on the first day of every calendar month until further orders.

v. The applicant shall furnish his Mobile Number(s) as well as his current residential address to the concerned Sessions Court and shall inform the Court of any change in address or contact details forthwith.

vi. It is clarified that the learned A.P.P. and/or the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the event of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions or for any other sufficient cause.

vii. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

*sandesh

Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/12/2025 19:47:00