303-IA-1837-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1837 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2017 Akhtar Husain Saifuddin Kaladagi .....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent ..... Mr. Sachin Salunke, for the Applicant. Mr. A.A.Palkar, A.P.P for the Respondent – State. Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik (Appointed Advocate) for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant was convicted by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11th January, 2017 passed by the Special Judge, Pune under POCSO Act, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (n), 323, 502 & 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, alongwith Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous Wakodikar 1/4 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2026.09.11 19:50:46 +0530 303-IA-1837-2024.doc imprisonment for the remainder period of his life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. It is a settled position that Trial Court could not have sentenced the applicant for the remainder period of his life. No appeal has been filed challenging the Order of the Trial Court by the State. The applicant is in custody for more than 14 years and 9 months. The allegation is no doubt serious and the applicant has been convicted for the aforesaid offences, the victims are his two daughters. 4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the mother of the victims, as a result of which a false complaint was made. It is further submitted that the version of PW-1 and PW-2 victims are contradictory. 5. Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for the complainant invited our attention to the findings to support their submissions that the offence is serious and that the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for convicting the applicant. 6. The applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more Wakodikar 2/4 303-IA-1837-2024.doc than 12 years in custody. 7. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant's conduct in jail was unsatisfactory or that he has misused the liberty when released on bail/furlough. 8. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh1, we are inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail with certain terms and conditions. 9. This appeal is likely to take some time to be heard finally considering the pendency of older matters. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in Special POCSO Case No. 253 of 2014 under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, is suspended during the pendency of the appeal. (ii) The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 Wakodikar 3/4 303-IA-1837-2024.doc sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant shall report to the Mundhwa Police Station, Pune, once in three month, on the first Monday of the concerned month commencing October 2026. (iv) The applicant shall furnish his residential address and other contact information to the police station as well as the Trial Court. (v) The applicant shall not reside within the jurisdiction of the police station where the victims reside. 10. Application is allowed and disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Wakodikar 4/4