Cri-Apln-1939-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1939 OF 2026 IN APEAL/391/2026 ABHIMANYU UDDHAV JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .… Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant Ms Chaitali R. Chaudhari – Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Ms Monica Bagwe, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2 .… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : 07 September, 2026 08 September, 2026 O R D E R :- 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in consequence to the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Special and Sessions Judge, Beed, in Special (POCSO) Case No.199 of 2024, dated 30.03.2026, convicting the applicant for the offence under Sections 333, 74, 75, 79, 351(2) of B. N. S. and under Sections 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:41353 (( 2 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that, the applicant is sentenced to suffer four years imprisonment. He has already undergone one year and eleven months imprisonment i.e. almost two years. That the complainant’s evidence is doubtful. Moreover, the conduct of the applicant, i.e. he did not flee even upon the arrival of the police force, also supports his case. In fact, there is false implication of the applicant on the allegation that the applicant was indulging in human trafficking. There are good grounds to succeed in the appeal. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, it is respectfully submitted that the sentence imposed upon the applicant be suspended. 3. The learned APP, as well as the learned counsel for the victim, opposed the application on the ground that there is cogent and reliable evidence against the applicant. That, after a full-fledged trial, the applicant has been convicted. From the evidence of the victim, it is proved that she was a minor at the relevant time. The applicant also has criminal antecedents, having indulged in similar offences. For the aforesaid reasons, they both urge to reject the application. 2 of 4 (( 3 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026 4. Heard. Perused the papers. It appears that the applicant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 74, 75, 79 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The victim was stated to be 11 years and 06 months old. In support thereof, prosecution has placed on record birth certificate of the victim issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act by the Municipal Council, Beed. Therefore, the age of the victim is proved. 5. There are allegations that, when victim’s mother returned home at around 3:00 p.m., at that time she noticed accused present in her house wearing only minimal clothing. Victim thereafter reported to her mother that the accused had entered their house and threatened her to remove her clothes. Thereafter, he allegedly placed his fingers on her private part, pressed her chest, and kissed her. On receiving such information, mother appears to have lodged the complaint. 6. Prima facie, nothing damaging appears to have been brought out in the cross-examination of the victim or the informant. No substantial point on the merits is found so as to warrant suspension of the sentence. Accordingly, following order is passed:- 3 of 4 (( 4 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026 O R D E R (i) Criminal application is rejected. (ii) Fees of learned counsel Ms. Monica Bagwe, appointed for respondent No.2, be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Comittee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ] SMS 4 of 4