bipin prithiani 1 9-ia-4445.25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4445 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2025 Rukaya Bahaddur Khan … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2021 ****** Mr. Anush Shetty i/by Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry for Applicant/ Appellant. Dr. Dhanalakshmi Iyer, APP for Respondent-State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 24th AUGUST 2026 P.C. : . Bail Application of convicted co-accused-Rukaya Bahaddur Khan is listed today for consideration. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court to an order passed earlier in an application filed on behalf of this applicant. By an order dated 22nd February 2021 the bail application was rejected. 3. But, subsequently, bail application of co-accused person was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 30th April 2025. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.08.25 09:38:54 +0530 bipin prithiani 2 9-ia-4445.25.doc child witness in the present case appears to have been tutored and observations to that effect have been made in the order dated 30th April 2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting bail to the co-accused person. 4. The learned APP has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the role of the present application is distinct from the role of the co-accused person and that on a proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record, it would be clear that the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is clearly sustainable. 5. We notice the fact that the present applicant had earlier filed a joint appeal with the co-accused person, but subsequently, with the permission of this Court, a separate appeal was filed. The appeal initially filed is pending since the year 2021. The paper book is ready and the appeal itself can be taken up for consideration. 6. We find that although the applicant has suffered incarceration for 8 years and 10 months, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs. State of uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446 would not be applicable, considering the period of incarceration suffered by the applicant. 7. In that light, we are of the opinion that the appeals of the two convicted persons can be taken up for consideration, as only 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. bipin prithiani 3 9-ia-4445.25.doc 8. In view of the above, list this appeal, along with Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2021, for hearing on 17th September 2026, at 4:00 p.m. 9. Presently, this application is not being disposed of, for the reason that if for some reason, the appeal is not taken up for hearing and disposal on the said date of hearing and expeditiously thereafter, the applicant may be able to pursue this application. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)