30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2600 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025 Mr. Bablu @ Amir Shabbir Bale ...Applicant- Appellant Versus The State Of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents Mr. Fakhruddin Khan, for the Applicant - Appellant. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State – Respondent No.1. Ms. Kamal Sinha, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the Applicant on bail. 2. In fact, this is the second application for bail. The first application being IA/2001/2025 came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer for suspension of sentence in the event the appeal is not heard within a period of six months, by an order dated 12th January, 2026. 3. The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant and co- accused Shabbir Bale, who was the father of the Applicant, and the prosecution against whom abated as he passed away on 5th 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.05 12:58:35 +0530 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC August, 2023, was that, late Shabbir (A1) was working as a junior clerk in the Government Senior and Junior Girls Hostel, Shirur, District Pune. Late Shabbir (A1) and the Applicant Bablu (A2) were residing in the employees quarters situated adjacent to the girls hostel. An enquiry by the Superintendent revealed that the girls were subjected to sexual assault by late Shabbir (A1) and the Applicant (A2), on multiple occasions. The accused were thus prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 376 and 376C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’), and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the POCSO Act, 2012’). 4. After appraisal of the evidence and material on record, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Pune, by a judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2025, was persuaded to convict the Applicant for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation, on each count. 5. I have heard Mr. Fakhruddin Khan, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP for the State, and Ms. Komal Sinha, the learned Counsel appointed to espouse the cause of Respondent No. 2. 2/6 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC 6. Mr. Khan, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the Applicant was roped in only for being the son of the deceased accused Shabbir (A1). The genesis of the prosecution was in the dispute that late Shabbir had with Smt. Chauhan, the head of the Girls Hostel at Shirur. To wreak vengeance, the girls were set up to make false allegations of sexual assault and harassment against late Shabbir (A1) and the Applicant (A2). 7. Mr. Khan further submitted that the Applicant had allegedly sexually assaulted PW-5, who was then an inmate in the girls hostel. The other victims have not attributed any role to the Applicant. The testimony of PW-5, according to Mr. Khan, is unworthy of credence. It was not established that PW-5 was a child. Nor, the medical evidence supports the claim of PW-5, as the Medical Officer conceded that he can not state with certainty that the victims had sexual intercourse. Moreover, the victim had made allegations of sexual assault and harassment against other persons as well. And those accused have been enlarged on bail. All these circumstances, according to Mr. Khan, render the Applicant's defense of false prosecution imminently probable and, thus, it can be said that the Applicant has a strong case on merits. 3/6 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC 8. It was further submitted that the Applicant was on bail during the trial, barring the initial period of 5 months and 18 days of his arrest. It was not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant had abused his liberty. Thus, the Applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 9. In opposition to this, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP, submitted that it was a case of sexual assault on the children who were in the protective custody of Shabbir (A1) and, by extension, the Applicant. The offences are grave. There is direct evidence to show the complicity of the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 10. Ms. Komal Sinha, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, supplemented the submissions of the learned APP. 11. I have perused the testimony of the victim (PW-5). The victim has deposed in clear and categorical terms that the Applicant committed penetrative sexual assault upon her on multiple occasions, and after each act, the Applicant used to give her a pill and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, lest she would be killed. It it trite, the testimony of the victim of a sexual offence, in law, does not require any corroboration. On the touchstone of prudence, prima facie, there are testimonies of multiple witnesses who have sought to 4/6 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC corroborate the version of the victim, in one or the other form. The circumstances and behavior attributable to the victim which aroused the suspicion and inquiry with the victim girls and the resultant disclosure of the startling facts has been deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, at this stage, it is legally impermissible to embark upon a meticulous evaluation of the evidence and pick up the shortcomings and the loopholes in the prosecution case. 12. The evidence indicates that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the victim was 14 years of age. Thus, at this stage, the submissions of Mr. Khan premised on the absence of the evidence to show that the victim was a child cannot be countenanced. Likewise, the submission on behalf of the Applicant that the victim had lodged reports of sexual harassment and assault against other persons does not advance cause of the applicant as it is in the destitution and vulnerability the victim that the predators sense an opportunity to sexually exploit such victims. Therefore, the mere fact that the victim was constrained to lodge reports by itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of the victim, especially at this stage. 13. Cumulatively, this is not a case where the Court can 5/6 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC legitimately draw an inference that the Applicant has a very strong chance of success in the appeal and, therefore, the sentence deserves to be suspended. 14. Resultantly, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The application stands rejected. (ii) The hearing of the appeal stands expedited. (iii) The appeal be listed for final hearing in the week commencing from 12th October, 2026. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6