39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt 1 This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes order dated 29.06.2026. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2026 IN APEAL/621/2025 WITH CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2204 OF 2025 IN APEAL/621/2025 SURAJSINGH HIRANSINGH RATHOD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ...... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kunal Vidyadhar Patil i/by Adv. Rajnandini P. Katkar APP for Respondent-State : Mr. Nitin B. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Adv. Tanvi Lad (Appointed) ...... CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 2. The Applicant has approached this Court seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in Special Case No. 54/2023. By order dated 31.05.2025, the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), Wai, Satara under the POCSO Act, convicted the Applicant for offences punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. The Applicant now seeks suspension of the said sentence. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was aged 19 years and the victim was aged 15 years at the time of the NAJEEB.. 39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt 2 incident. The Applicant was in a love affair with the victim. The testimony of the victim suggests that she had left her house on 25.11.2015 following a quarrel with her mother and had gone to Nalewadi to visit her ailing grandfather. Thereafter, she was taken to Nanded and later to Latur, where she stayed at a lodge until 08.12.2015. During this period, she had sexual intercourse with the accused under the promise of marriage. The learned Counsel further submits that the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. initially after she was found by the police authorities differs materially from the testimony of the complainant during trial. The applicant and the complainant girl were in a love relationship at the time of the incident, and hence the incident occurred. The testimony itself shows that there was no enticement on the part of the applicant to take the victim away from the lawful guardianship of her parents. The Applicant was arrested after registration of the offence and was released on regular bail on 19.01.2016. Following the conviction judgment dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, the Applicant was arrested and has been in custody since then. The Applicant is engaged in labour work and is willing to provide local surety if released on bail. He has no criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 4. The learned APP as well as the learned appointed counsel strongly oppose the appeal on the ground that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The victim’s date of birth is 18.11.2000, and the incident took place in the intervening night of 24–25.11.2015. The victim has specifically stated that the Applicant committed sexual intercourse against her will. The Applicant is involved in a serious offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a minor girl, is a resident NAJEEB.. 39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt 3 of the same village where the Applicant resides. The Applicant is now married and residing at Satara, and therefore there is every likelihood that he may disturb or threaten the Complainant and her family. There is a strong possibility that the Applicant may again intimidate the Complainant and her family members if released on bail. Hence, the application for suspension of sentence liable to be rejected. 5. I have gone through the paperbook of the learned trial Court, which contains the testimony of the complainant, referred to as ‘ABC’. A perusal of the same shows that the victim specifically stated that she had called the present Applicant on the telephone after quarreling with her mother, as she had visited Nalewadi on 24.11.2014 to see her ailing grandfather. It was thereafter that the Applicant took the victim girl along with him. There are no allegations that the Applicant enticed the minor victim girl or took her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents. The Applicant was initially arrested after registration of the offence on 15.12.2015 but was released on regular bail on 19.01.2016. There are no allegations of the Applicant violating any of the conditions imposed by the learned trial Court while granting bail. The Applicant has been in custody since 31.05.2025, following the judgment passed by the Special Court in Special Case No. 54/2023. The prosecutrix is aged 15 years, and the age of the Applicant, who was 19 years at the time of incident. The Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Mahadev Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, SCC OnLine Bom 6204 (2015), was pleased to observe as under : “7. In the case of S.Varadarajan (supra) though the age of consent though as per law was 18 years, when the girl eloped with the accused, she was approximately 17 years and 9 months old. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. NAJEEB.. 39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt 4 Varadarajan has distinguished Section 361 on the point of taking from the guardian or enticing the girl and the girl herself leaving the house of the parents of her own and accused allowing her to be in his company and has held that it not a case of rape. In the case of S. Varadarajan, the matter was finally heard and the accused was convicted. In appeal, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be culled out that if a girl takes initiative or she is active in taking decision of going away with the boy and she understands the meaning of man-woman relationship and of marriage, then the rigor of offence is reduced. 8. It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan was decided in the year 1967 when the women were not enjoying the freedom which today the women have. Albeit the Hon'ble Supreme Court then has taken a pragmatic view and has acquitted Varadarajan. Now we come across such cases everyday. If a girl is a minor between the age group of 15 to 18 years and if it can be safely inferred that her consent was obvious, then it is a mitigating circumstance. Some trial Courts dealing with such Bail Applications, especially after Nirbhaya case, started taking a strict approach and the accused are denied the bail only on the ground that the prosecutrix being minor below 18 years, her consent is immaterial, therefore, in the case of rape on such minor, no bail can be granted. This is a matter of concern.” 6. The appeal was admitted on 04.08.2025 and will come up in due course for hearing. Considering the pendency of the appeal, it is evident that the final hearing will take its own time to reach. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and taking into account the willingness of the applicant to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, I am inclined to suspend the sentence by releasing the Applicant on bail. Hence the following order : NAJEEB.. 39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt 5 ORDER (I) Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 stands allowed. (II) The sentence imposed on the Applicant in Special Case No. 54/2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO) vide judgment dated 31.05.2025, the sentence stands suspended. The Applicant – Surajsingh Hiransingh Rathod be released on regular bail, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the like amount until the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025. (III) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence the witnesses. (IV) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of himself and two of the near relatives. (V) The Applicant shall attend the Wai Police Station, District Satara, on the 1st day of January every year. (VI) The Applicant shall not contact or the threaten the Complainant. (VII) Failure on the part of the Applicant shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. (VIII) The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fees of the appointed Counsel, which are quantified at Rs. 6,000/-. (IX) Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 stands disposed of. (X) In view of Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 being allowed, nothing survives in Criminal Interim Application No. 2204/2025, which accordingly stands disposed of. [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] JUDGE NAJEEB..