SURENDRAKUMAR TRIYOGINARAYAN TIWARI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
/1103/2026 · 2026-09-01
Criminal Appealbody2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2333 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2333 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 / 4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1103 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1451 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2024 Surendrakumar Triyoginarayan Tiwari .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents ….... • Ms. Sagayamary M., Advocate for Applicant. • Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the State/Respondent. • Ms. Rekha Musale, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :
1. These are the applications for bail pending final disposal of the Appeal No.84 of 2024 preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Vasai, vide his Judgment and Order dated 15/02/2022 passed in Special Case No.85/2016. Nesarikar MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2026.09.02 10:52:02 +0530
2 / 4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
2. The Applicant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable u/s 376(n), 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- as the major punishment.
3. Heard Ms. Sagayamary M., learned Counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Rekha Musale, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP for the State.
4.
Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is in custody since 2016. The victim has not given truthful evidence during the trial. The case was a result of fight between the victim's mother and the Applicant who were in live-in- relationship. The Applicant is falsely implicated. 5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the original victim opposed these applications. They invited our attention to the deposition of the victim and that of the Medical Officer. They submitted that the victim's deposition was corroborated by the Doctor’s evidence. They submitted that the offence is serious and
3 / 4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt hence the Applicant cannot be released on bail during pendency of his Appeal. 6. We have considered these submissions, and in particular, the evidence of the victim and the Medical Officer. 7. The defence of the Applicant was that his wife had an extra-marital affair with the owner of the vehicle which was driven by the Applicant, and therefore, this false case was lodged by her. There is no direct or indirect evidence to support his defence. 8. The victim was examined as P.W.2. At the relevant time, in the year 2016, she was 8 years of age. She had lost her father. But her mother was living with the present Applicant. At that time, the victim was studying in 5th standard. She deposed that the Applicant used to lock her in a room and used to perform sexual intercourse with her. This was going on since she was studying in the 3rd standard. The Applicant used to threaten her. On one occasion, he had not returned home for three days, and therefore, during that period, she informed her mother about what the Applicant was doing. 4 / 4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
9. Her cross-examination has not revealed anything in favor of the Applicant. The medical evidence is led in the form of evidence of P.W.5, Dr. Waghmare. The medical papers are also produced. Her evidence shows that, in her opinion, there was evidence of old penetrative vaginal sexual assault. This was also noted down in the medical papers produced on record. There were multiple tears of the hymen. 10. Thus, the victim's evidence is supported by the medical evidence. The learned Judge considered these aspects and has observed that considering the nature of offence, no benefit could be granted to the Applicant. 11.
Considering these circumstances, it is quite clear that the offence is serious and the Applicant cannot be granted bail during pendency of this Appeal. 12. Hence applications are rejected. Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)