18-IA-1002-2006.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1363 OF 2023 Vicky Gopal Thapa @ Sagar ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents **** Mr. Sujeet Bugade, Appointed Advocate for the Applicant. None for Respondent No.2. Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for Respondent-State. **** CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 25th AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1. This is an application for bail pending appeal. The appeal has been preferred by the Applicant against the judgment and order dated 9th May 2023, passed by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai, in POCSO Special Case No.821 of 2020. By the said judgment, the Applicant was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act. The major sentence imposed upon the Applicant is imprisonment for life, which is to mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, besides the imposition of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 1 Sharada SHARADA RANGNATH WAHULE Digitally signed by SHARADA RANGNATH WAHULE Date: 2026.08.28 17:34:45 +0530 18-IA-1002-2006.doc 2. Heard Mr. Bugade, learned counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Kak, learned APP for Respondent-State. 3. The prosecution case is unfolded through the evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW-2. In all 9 witnesses were examined, including the Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the ingredients of the offences are not made out. The important witness, Teena, has not been examined, and therefore, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. He has been in custody since 5th August 2020. The appeal is not likely to be decided at an early date. 5. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the offences are serious. The sentence is for the remainder of the natural life of the Applicant. She submitted that the evidence of the victim and the medical evidence are consistent and, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out. 6. We have considered these submissions. As mentioned earlier, the victim was examined as PW-2. She has narrated that at the time of incident she was 4 years of age. At the time of her deposition she was around 7 years age. There is no disputes about her age. She deposed that one Teena aunty called her. She gave her snacks. After having food Teena aunty went to wash plates. The Applicant took the victim to his 2 Sharada 18-IA-1002-2006.doc room. She thereafter narrated the incident that the Applicant inserted finger in her private parts. In the meantime the victim’s mother came there looking for her. She saw that there was bleeding from the victim’s parts. She told her mother about the incident. Her mother took her to the doctor. There is nothing in the cross examination which would help the defence in this case. 7. The medical officer was examined as PW-9, Dr. Ganveer. She had examined the victim. She deposed that at the relevant time she was attached to J.J. Medical College as Junior resident doctor. On general examination of the victim, she saw that there were blood stains on her underwear. There were milky white stains over labia majora and labia minora. Hymenal injury was seen. The edges fresh. There was bleeding at 7 o’clock position. There was edema and there was a complete hymenal tear. The victim was examined after three and half hours of the incident. The overall findings were consistent with the sexual intercourse/ assault. The report was produce at Exhibit-13. 8. These facts show that the victim’s case is fully supported by the medical evidence of the Medical Officer. The non-examination of Teena does not help the defence. The medical evidence is very strong. In view of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the offence is grave and that the Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. There is sufficient evidence against him. 3 Sharada 18-IA-1002-2006.doc 9. The Application is therefore rejected. ( RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 4 Sharada