18-IA-3503-2024.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3503 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2024 Mastan Ali Abdul Salim Shaikh Alias Aayan ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr …Respondents Mr. Raeesuddin Khan, for the Applicant. Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. Vrunali Vilankar, (through VC), Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the Applicant on bail, during the pendency of the Appeal. 2. By a judgment and order dated 12th April 2024, the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, convicted the Applicant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the POCSO Act, 2012”), and for the major offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, ARS 1/3 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.25 15:45:50 +0530 18-IA-3503-2024.DOC sentenced the Applicant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- ,with default stipulation. 3. The indictment against the Applicant was that the Applicant subjected the victim, then 17 years of age, to penetrative sexual assault by giving promise of marriage. There were multiple instances of penetrative sexual assault. Eventually, the victim became pregnant. It then transpired that the Applicant was already married and had two children and had made a false representation that he would marry the victim. Thereupon, the pregnancy was terminated. 4. Mr. Raeesuddin Khan, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the prosecution did not establish that the victim was a child. It was submitted that though the birth certificate was placed on record, yet, the victim or her mother had not deposed that the said birth certificate was that of the victim. It was further submitted that the Applicant has undergone a sentence of more than three and half years. Therefore, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the Appeal. 5. Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, the learned APP and Ms. Vrunali Vilankar, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-victim, stoutly opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It is trite, at the stage of consideration of an Application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is not expected to delve ARS 2/3 18-IA-3503-2024.DOC into the merits of the matter so as to find out lacunae, loopholes or shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. Evidently, the birth certificate (Exhibit “37”), prima facie, indicates that the victim had not completed 18 years of age, at the time of the alleged occurrence. Thus, the submission on behalf of the Applicant premised on the inapplicability of the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012, cannot be readily acceded to, at this stage. 7. Prima facie, the consitutent ingredients of the offence appear self- evient. Indisputably, the Applicant was married and had two children. The DNA report reveals that the accused and the victim were the biological parents of the fetus. An endeavour was made during the course of the cross-examination of the victim and her mother that the relationship was consensual. 8. In the backdrop of these facts, it cannot said that the Applicant has succeeded in making out a case that he has a strong chance of success in the Appeal. Resultantly, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicant. 9. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The Application stands rejected. (ii) Hearing of the Appeal stands expedited. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 3/3