CrAppln-2481-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2481 OF 2026 IN APPEAL/498/2026 Shamsundar Narsingrao Naik Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Nageshwadi, Jawlabajar, Taluka Aundha, District Hingoli. ….Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Badnapur Police Station, Jalna. 2. XYZ …..Respondents ….. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1. Ms. Devika Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed). ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 08 SEPTEMBER, 2026 Pronounced on : 09 SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in Special Case No. 120 of 2020 dated 01.06.2026 by learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna for offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [POCSO Act] and under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and equally, prayer is raised for grant of bail also. 2026:BHC-AUG:41519 CrAppln-2481-2026 -2- 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, though the trial was conducted and conviction was recorded for the offences under the POCSO Act, according to him, the prosecution could not discharge the primary burden of proving the age of the victim and establishing that she was a minor. That, moreover, there are variances in the deposition and FIR about the actual act. That, at one point she merely speaks of harassment, but later on alleges molestation. Thus, she is not consistent. Applicant was on bail during trial. He was serving in the bus as a conductor. Sentence awarded is of three years, which is a fixed term. That, appeal has been preferred, but it may take sufficiently long time to be heard and decide and for such reasons, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for. 3. Learned APP for respondent No.1/State as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2/victim both opposed the application on the ground that there is overwhelming evidence adduced by prosecution on the point of age as well as act of molestation. Testimony of victim herself has remained unshaken. For such reasons, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is opposed. 4. After hearing both sides and going through the papers, it appears that the applicant, who is a conductor in the State Transport bus, was charge-sheeted and tried for the offences punishable under CrAppln-2481-2026 -3- Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The trial ultimately ended up in conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of the IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 5. The allegations are that, while the victim was travelling in the bus in which the applicant was working as a conductor, he molested her while sitting next to her. She lodged a report, which resulted in registration of the crime and, ultimately, the applicant being tried for the aforesaid offences. 6. The fundamental ground raised is that there is no conclusive proof regarding the age of the victim, i.e. in the form of a birth certificate. The prosecution seems to have adduced the evidence of the father of the victim, PW2, and his testimony is at Exhibit-20. The testimony of the victim, PW3, is at Exhibit-22 and there is also the testimony of the driver of the bus, PW4, at Exhibit-38. The victim has alleged that she boarded the bus proceeding from Vasmath to Aurangabad. She claims that the bus was fully occupied and, therefore, she occupied the seat next to the conductor. She claims that lights of the bus were put off and at that time, while the bus was running, the conductor put his hand towards her left breast and therefore, she claimed to have pushed him and so she cried. After CrAppln-2481-2026 -4- reaching Aurangabad, she claims to have phoned her father and on next day, she filed complaint. 7. Against conviction and sentence for three years, the appeal has been preferred in 2026. Occurrence is of 19.02.2020 and FIR is lodged on 20.02.2020. Statement is made across the bar by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is variance in the FIR and testimony before the Court on the point of actual act and there is no documentary proof on the point of age of the victim. Therefore, evidence needs re-appreciation, but in appeal. Taking the quantum of sentence to be three years and there being no prospects of hearing the appeal in immediate near future, relief as prayed deserves to be granted. Hence, the following order : ORDER I. The Criminal Application is allowed. II. The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant Shamsundar Narsingrao Naik by learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special Case No.120 of 2020 dated 01-06-2026, stands suspended till the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2026. III. The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount. CrAppln-2481-2026 -5- IV. The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity. V. The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal, commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent appearances. VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform this court about the same and in that eventuality, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. VII. Bail before the trial court. VIII. Fees of learned Advocate, who is appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2, is to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad, as per rules. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm