CriAppln-2896-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2896 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2026 Arun s/o Bhagwan Gavli, Age: 30 years, Occu.: Labour, At present in jail, R/o. Village Gummi, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana. … Applicant [Accused] Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Pachora Police Station, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. X. Y. Z. … Respondent ….. Mr. Sunil. G. Magre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Kalpana Sonpawale Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed) ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 08.09.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.09.2026 ORDER : 1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in Special Case No. 12 of 2017 dated 17.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jalgaon for offence under Section 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and equally, prayer is raised for grant of bail also. 2026:BHC-AUG:41521 CriAppln-2896-2026 -2- 2. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution by relying only upon the testimony of PW1 and PW5, i.e. the informant and the victim. However, in the cross- examination of PW1, there are vital admissions. That, victim spent sufficient time in the company of applicant and at no point of time any alarm was raised. The medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. There was no use of force and whatever relations were developed were consensual. It is further submitted that the applicant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction by filing an appeal, however, the appeal is of the year 2026 and the same may not be heard immediately. As the applicant is behind bars for more than three years and eleven months, the 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 opposed the application on the ground that victim is proved to be minor. She was 14 years and 8 months old only. Therefore, the defence of consensual relations or acts has been rightly discarded by learned Trial Court. There is medical evidence and therefore, relief of suspension of sentence as well as grant of bail is opposed. CriAppln-2896-2026 -3- 4. Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that charges were framed before the learned Trial Court against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and under Sections 4, 5(j)(ii)(l), 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Ultimately, conviction seems to have been recorded for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. There does not seem to be any serious challenge on the point of the age of the victim. The learned Trial Court has taken into account the testimony of the victim, her grandfather and the evidence of PW6 on the point of age and, in paragraph No.17 of the judgment, has reached a finding that she was 15 years old and less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The victim has deposed as PW5. Though she spent time in the company of the applicant, going by the age proof produced by the prosecution, her passive consent, if any, also cannot be taken into account at this stage. She was also impregnated and, therefore, the act of sexual intercourse is also demonstrated by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, taking such evidence into account, and there being no good ground to hold that there are better prospects of success in the appeal, in view of the nature of the charges proved, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for. However, if the applicant so CriAppln-2896-2026 -4- desires, his appeal itself can be taken up for hearing. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER . Criminal Application is rejected. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm