[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mahesh Dattatray Gorde vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:2988 61-APEAL-1164-2025.DOC
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4384 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2025
Mahesh Dattatray Gorde ...Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Ghanasham S. Jadhav i/b Ganesh Mane, for the Appellant.
Mr. A. S. Gawai, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 21st JANUARY 2026
PC:-
IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4384 OF 2025:
1. This application is for enlargement of the Appellant on
bail and suspension of sentence in connection with the
Judgment and Order dated 14th October 2025 passed in
Special Case (POCSO) No. 567 of 2021, whereby the
Appellant/Accused came to be convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(i), 363 of the Indian Penal
Page 1 of 5
st
21 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:59:01 :::
61-APEAL-1164-2025.DOC
Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and Sections 3(a), 4(2), 5(j)(ii)
and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short, "POCSO Act") and was sentenced to suffer
maximum punishment of 20 years' imprisonment with fine.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that apart
from the fact that the victim as well as the Informant have not
supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court has
committed an error in relying upon the DNA test report to
convict the Appellant. In this regard, he draws attention of
this Court to the evidence on record, more particularly, the
evidence of the Chemical Analyzer, who accepts the fact that
the samples of victim were drawn on 27 th July 2021 and the
samples of the child were taken on 29th July 2021. However,
the samples were received by the FSL on 29th July 2021. Thus,
it is his contention that there is no evidence to indicate as to
in whose custody the said samples were kept. He also draws
attention of the Court to the evidence of Dr. Patel (PW-9), who
drew the said samples. It is his submission that in the
substantive evidence before the Court, this witness does not
Page 2 of 5
st
21 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:59:01 :::
61-APEAL-1164-2025.DOC
say anything about collecting the samples of the child. In the
cross-examination, she admitted to not using a DNA kit at the
time of collection of the samples of the victim. It is his
submission that having regard to all these facts, serious doubt
is created with regard to the DNA test result.
3. Learned APP opposes the application, contending that
the age of the victim has been duly proved before the Trial
Court and that in view of the DNA test report, there is no
error committed by the Trial Court in convicting the
Appellant.
4. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and has instructed
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 to make a statement of
not opposing the grant of bail to the Appellant.
5. No doubt, merely because the victim records no
objection for grant of bail, the sentence cannot be suspended
unless a case is made out by the Appellant that he has a fair
chance of success in the Appeal.
Page 3 of 5
st
21 January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2026 20:59:01 :::
61-APEAL-1164-2025.DOC
6. In the present case, except for the DNA test report, there
is no other evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime.
Perusal of the evidence on record indicates that the samples of
the victim were drawn on 27th July 2021. However, the said
samples were received by the FSL on 29 th July 2021. Prima
facie, this Court unable to find any evidence on record to
indicate the custody of the said samples till the samples were
received by the FSL. Apart from this, there is an admission of
the doctor indicating that while collecting blood samples for
the DNA report, a DNA kit was not used. Thus, it can be said
that the Appellant has reasonable chance of success in the
Appeal. He has no criminal history and is not likely to flee
from justice. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The Appellant be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
st
21 January 2026
61-APEAL-1164-2025.DOC
iii) The suspension of sentence imposed against the
Appellant by Judgment and Order dated 14 th October 2025
passed in Special Case (POCSO) No. 567 of 2021 stands
suspended till decision of the Appeal.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2025:
7. Admit
8. Call record and proceedings.
9. Learned APP waives service on behalf of the
Respondent-State.
10. Mr. Ranjeet Pwar waives service on behalf of
Respondent No.2.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
st
21 January 2026
