917-IA-1080-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1080 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2025 Jyotiram Balasaheb Sapkal ...Applicant Versus. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant. (through VC) Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Benazir Jamadar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 9th September, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard, Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Benazir Jamadar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. 2. By this Application, the Applicant has sought the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) :- a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise its powers under section 430 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to S. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and may be pleased to suspend the substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant and he may be enlarged Arjun 1 917-IA-1080-2025.doc on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal; 3. The Applicant is an Accused in Crime No. 24 of 2013, registered at Vairag Police Station, Solapur Rural, for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC, 1860”), Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act, 1989”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act, 2012”). 4. Upon registration of Crime No. 24 of 2013, the Applicant was arrested on 06.02.2013 and remained in jail until 25.04.2013, when he was released on bail in the said crime. 5. Crime No. 24 of 2013 was registered as Special (Atro.) Case No. 21 of 2014. The Applicant was on bail throughout the trial, which commenced in 2013 and culminated in the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 30.07.2024 (“impugned judgment”). 6. By the impugned Judgment, the Applicant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicant has been acquitted of the offences punishable under the SC/ST Act, 1989 and the POCSO Act, 2012. The Applicant Arjun 2 917-IA-1080-2025.doc was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, 1860. The Applicant was taken into custody on 30.07.2024 and has been in jail since then. 7. The accompanying Appeal was admitted on 22.07.2025. 8. Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 was consensual. He further submits that there is sufficient material to indicate that the relationship was indeed consensual and was not one of lust but of love. 9. Ms. Benazir Jamadar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits that there is sufficient material on record to substantiate the charge against the Applicant. She further submits that the Applicant has been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, 1860. 10. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP, supports the impugned Judgment of conviction and submits that the Trial Court has duly considered all the requirements and has rightly convicted the Applicant. 11. As submitted by Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the Arjun 3 917-IA-1080-2025.doc Applicant, the issue, in view of the Applicant's acquittal on the charges under the POCSO Act, 2012, would center on whether the relationship was consensual or forcible, as alleged by Respondent No. 2. 12. Prima facie, a perusal of the impugned Judgment in the context of the grounds raised by the Applicant in the memo of the Appeal indicates that the Applicant has a fair chance of succeeding on the merits. 13. The Applicant is in jail for a period of 2 years and 4 months from the date the impugned Judgment was passed. There are no allegations against the Applicant of his having either violated the bail conditions during the pendency of Special (Atro.) Case No. 21 of 2014 or having failed to appear before the Trial Court. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence being for 10 years and the Applicant having undergone 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment, the Applicant's request to suspend the sentence pending the Appeal is allowed. 15. This Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), on the following conditions:- Arjun 4 917-IA-1080-2025.doc (a) During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2025, the sentence of imprisonment imposed vide impugned Judgment and order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Barshi, in Special (Atro.) Case No. 21 of 2014, is suspended and the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one or two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Barshi. (b) Applicant shall regularly appear before this Court as and when the Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2025 is listed on the Causelist. (c) Applicant shall, within three (3) days of his release from jail, provide to the Investigating Officer, Vairag Police Station, his residential address with proof, the contact numbers and must inform the Investigating Officer about the change in the same from time to time. 16. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit Bench Arjun 5 917-IA-1080-2025.doc at Kolhapur, shall pay the legal fees payable under the Legal Aid Scheme to Advocate Ms. Benazir Jamadar, who has appeared and represented Respondent No. 2 in this Application. 17. Interim Application No. 1080 of 2025 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 6 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.09.09 22:08:01 +0530