10-IA3950-2025INAPEAL1306-2025.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3950 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2025 Mohammed Kausar Abdul Kalam Shaikh ...Applicant- Appellant Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr …Respondents Mr. Harshada Morey, for the Applicant - Appellant. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State – Respondent No.1. Ms. Savvy Kolhekar, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. PSI Mr. R. G. Gujar, Malad Police Station, present. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks the suspension of sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge in Special POCSO Case No. 531 of 2021 and release on bail, till the final disposal of the appeal. 3. By a judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025 in Special POCSO Case No. 531 of 2021, the applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the POCSO Act, 2012”) and Section 376(2)(n), read with Section 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.28 17:30:58 +0530 10-IA3950-2025INAPEAL1306-2025.DOC 376(3), 354A(2) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”). For the major offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, with default stipulation. 4. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant is that, the respondent No. 2 victim girl's grandmother was vending garments at a footpath besides the stall of the applicant. The victim was then under 16 years of age. The victim used to help her grandmother in the said business. In the month of July 2021, when the victim had been to the godown of the applicant situated at Dixit Bungalow to collect the raincoats, the applicant had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. The applicant threatened the victim with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anybody. The applicant again subjected the victim to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on 15th August, 2021 at the same place. As the applicant continued to demand sexual favours, the victim called the police by dialing 100. Thereupon, the law was set in motion. 5. After appraisal of the testimony of the victim, her grandmother and the medical officer, the learned Special Judge 2/5 10-IA3950-2025INAPEAL1306-2025.DOC was persuaded to return the finding of guilt and sentence the applicant, as indicated above. 6. Ms. Morey, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that there was a material contradiction in the testimony of the victim, who had deposed before the Court about the third incident of alleged sexual assault in the month of September 2021; that was not at all narrated before the police. The learned Special Judge committed an error in not appreciating the import of the said contradiction, despite noting the same. Secondly, the genesis of the prosecution was in the dispute which the grandmother of the victim had with the applicant over running the stalls on the footpath. Thirdly, since the applicant has undergone a sentence of almost 5 years, and the sentence is of a fixed term, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP and Ms. Kolhekar, the learned Counsel appointed to espouse the cause of the victim, strongly opposed the prayer of suspension of sentence and release on bail. It was submitted that, there is overwhelming evidence to sustain the guilt of the applicant, and having regard to the gravity of the offences, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 3/5 10-IA3950-2025INAPEAL1306-2025.DOC 8. From the perusal of the material on record, especially the deposition of the victim, it becomes prima facie evident that the victim has given a vivid account of the manner in which the applicant had sexually exploited her. Prima facie, the testimony of the victim went virtually unimpeached during the course of the cross-examination. Neither the omission, which Ms. Morey pressed into service, was elicited in the cross-examination in the manner known to law, nor the alleged reason of false prosecution was put to the victim, even by way of a suggestion. It is trite, the testimony of a victim of a sexual assault does not warrant corroboration as a matter of law. Yet, prima facie, the medical evidence lends corroboration to the version of the victim. The testimony of the grandmother and the other witnesses also lends support. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence, at this juncture, this Court is not persuaded to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant. 10. To put it in other words, the gravity of the offences, the quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, and the prima facie failure of the applicant to make out a case that he has a fair chance of success in the appeal, dissuade the Court from suspending the sentence and enlarging the applicant on bail. 4/5 10-IA3950-2025INAPEAL1306-2025.DOC 11. The decision in the case of Aasif @ Pasha vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.1 is of no assistance to the applicant, in the facts of the case at hand. 12. The interim application thus stands rejected. 13. The hearing of the appeal stands expedited. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 1 Criminal Appeal/3409/2025 dated 6/8/2025. 5/5