Bombay High Court
Anil Lalu More vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 7 October, 2025
1 2-APPA-1166-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 1166/2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 689/2024
Anil s/o Lalu More Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer,
Patan, Tq. Zari
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
Appearances, Court's orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mrs. Vaishali Khadekar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A.R. Chutke, APP for Respondent
CORAM: NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2025
1. The present application is preferred under Section
389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section
430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the
pendency of the appeal.
2. The applicant stands convicted for the following
offences:
Section 511 read with 376-AB of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) - sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 3
months;
2 2-APPA-1166-24.odt
Section 511 read with 376(2)(j) of IPC -
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of
₹5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months;
Section 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default to
suffer R.I. for 3 months.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
allegations pertain to the applicant allegedly removing the
undergarment of the minor victim and committing sexual
assault. It is submitted that there is no medical evidence
corroborating the allegation of sexual assault. Further, it is
submitted that the applicant remained in custody
throughout the trial and has been wrongly convicted in the
absence of substantive evidence directly implicating him in
the offence.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposes the application and submits that the absence of
medical evidence is not determinative in offences of this
nature. He further points out that the victim, a child of
merely six years of age, promptly disclosed the incident to
her parents, thus ruling out the possibility of tutoring or
fabrication. It is submitted that the conviction is based on
cogent and reliable evidence duly appreciated by the trial
Court, and no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record, including the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned trial Court. The conviction
is based on a detailed and reasoned appreciation of
evidence. The sentence imposed is also not disproportionate.
3 2-APPA-1166-24.odt
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jamnalal v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 69/2025, has delineated the
principles governing the exercise of discretion under Section
389 CrPC. In particular, paragraph 10 of the judgment
emphasizes the need for the appellate Court to form a prima
facie view as to whether the conviction is sustainable. It has
been held that:
"10. One would expected the High Court hearing
an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence to examine 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 mater 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
4 2-APPA-1166-24.odt
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 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."
7. Applying the above principles to the present case,
this Court does not find any such prima facie ground or
glaring irregularity which would indicate that the
applicant stands fair chances of acquittal or that the
conviction is ex facie unsustainable. The arguments
raised relate to appreciation of evidence, which is a
5 2-APPA-1166-24.odt
matter to be examined at the stage of final hearing of
the appeal.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
suspend the sentence or enlarge the applicant on bail.
9. The application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail stands rejected.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2025 18:44:44
