SKN 1 of 3 22-IA-3489.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3489 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2024 Mohammad Yasin Mohammad Yusuf. … Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. … Respondents. __________ Mr.Aniket Vagal with Juhi Kadu and Savvy Kolhekar for the Applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, Addl.PP for the Respondent- State. Ms.Jai Kanade (Appointed Advocate) with Prachiti Naik for Respondent No.2. __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 7th September 2026. PC : 1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence and to release the Applicant on bail pending the Appeal. 2. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), Greater Mumbai vide judgment and order dated 12th December 2023 passed in Special Case No.1147/2020. The Applicant was convicted for commission of offences punishable under section 376(2)(f)(i), 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. SKN 2 of 3 22-IA-3489.25 He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The Applicant is in custody since 30th October 2020. 3. Heard Mr.Vagal for the Applicant, Ms.Deshmukh, learned Addl.PP for the State and Ms.Kanade for Respondent No.2. With the assistance of learned counsel we have perused the evidence and, in particular the evidence of the victim and the medical officer. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the FIR is lodged by the aunt of the victim on 30th October 2020 vide CR No.317/2020 at Trombay Police Station. He submitted that there is a delay in filing the FIR. Even as per the statement of the victim, she had informed the first informant about this incident in August 2020 and, yet, the FIR was deliberately lodged in October 2020. This delay has remained unexplained, which shows deliberate false implication of the Applicant. He submitted that since the FIR was lodged belatedly the medical evidence will not be of any importance in this particular case. 5. The learned APP as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 i.e. original victim have opposed this Application. They submitted that the victim was staying with her grandmother. The Applicant was staying with the grandmother of the victim and he committed this offence. SKN 3 of 3 22-IA-3489.25 6. We have considered the submissions. As rightly submitted by the learned APP and the learned counsel for the victim, the victim was helpless as she was aged around 14 years at the time of incident. She had no shelter. Her mother had left her and therefore she was at the mercy of her grandmother. The Applicant was residing with the grandmother of the victim. He took advantage of the situation and committed this offence. The date of birth of the victim is 20th December 2006. She was studying is 7th standard at that time. She has clearly deposed that in 2019 the Applicant inserted his private part in her private part and committed forcible sexual intercourse. In August 2020 again he repeated it and finally she told this incident to her aunt who lodged the FIR. The medical evidence in the form of PW-4 Dr.Shirsat supports her case. There was an old healed tear of the hymen. The opinion was that overall findings and circumstances were consistent with the sexual assault. Thus, the medical evidence also supports the victim’s case. The offence is serious. There is sufficient evidence against the Applicant. No case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Application is dismissed. (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)