Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 704 Bom

Bombay High Court

Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:3079                                                            67-IA-5351-2024.DOC




                                                                                              Ajit Pathrikar

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5351 OF 2024
                                                   IN
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1101 OF 2024
                    Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare                        ...Appellant/Applicant
                          Versus
                    State Of Maharashtra And Anr.                     ...Respondents



                    Mr. Hrishikesh R. Chavan, for the Appellant.
                    Ms. S. K. Gajare, APP for the State-Respondent No.1.
                    Ms. Aishwarya Sharma, for the Respondent No.2.


                                                  CORAM      R. M. JOSHI, J.

                                                  DATED:     21st JANUARY 2026
                    PC:-

1. This application is for suspension of sentence and

enlargement of the Appellant on bail in connection with the

Judgment and Order dated 30th January 2024 passed in

Sessions Case No. 162 of 2021, whereby the Appellant is

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with

fine.

2. The facts of the case are that the daughter of the

Appellant-accused levelled allegations against him of being

st 21 January 2026

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

sexually harassed by the Appellant. She claims to have

narrated the incident to her mother. However, mother was

not of any help to her. Ultimately, she approached her

maternal aunt and uncle, with whose aid she could lodge a a

report against the Appellant. She maintained her version

before the Trial Court in her substantial evidence. Her version

is supported by the medical evidence on record. Apart from

this, the prosecution examined the younger brother of the

victim in order to support the case of the prosecution. The

Trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted

the Appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Trial

Court has failed to take into consideration a vital aspect of the

case, that the mother of the victim, who was informed about

the alleged incident of sexual assault, was not examined by

the prosecution. It is his submission that though the evidence

of the brother is led before the Court, his statement came to

be recorded belatedly. It is his argument that having regard to

st 21 January 2026

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

the fact that there were disputes in the family over the

Appellant not providing money for household expenses, the

possibility of false implication is made out. Learned counsel

for the Appellant further submits that in view of the evidence

of the victim, it can be seen that the victim along with her

parents and brother were residing in two-room premises and

hence, it is not possible that any such incident would have

occurred.

4. Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2

opposed the application. According to them, the Appellant has

not brought on record any substantive reason for his false

implication. It is their submission that the testimony of the

prosecutrix/victim itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the

Appellant. According to them, her version gets support not

only from the evidence of her brother but also from the

medical evidence.

5. In order to seek suspension of sentence and enlargement

on bail, the Appellant has to make out a prima facie case of

st 21 January 2026

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

success in the Appeal. Even though it is accepted that the

place of incident is two-room premises, that by itself does not

lead to the conclusion that the offence could not have

occurred. The prosecutrix, in her testimony, specifically states

the manner in which the incident of sexual assault used to be

caused on her by her father. In the cross-examination, nothing

was elicited in order to discard her testimony. Though it is

brought on record that the Appellant was not providing

money for household expenses and quarrels used to be occur

on that issue, the same cannot become a substantial reason

for false implication of the Appellant. As rightly pointed out

by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned

APP, the testimony of the victim is reliable so also it also gets

support from medical evidence and the evidence of her

brother. In such circumstances, this Court finds no

justification to enlarge the Applicant on bail.

6. Hence, the Interim Application stands dismissed.

7. Appeal stands expedited.

st 21 January 2026

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove

are restricted to the decision of the Interim Application and

shall not come in way of both the sides while hearing the

Appeal finally.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

st 21 January 2026