Bombay High Court
SURENDRAKUMAR TRIYOGINARAYAN TIWARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Bail was denied; the applications for interim bail were rejected.
Summary
The applicant, convicted of rape, criminal intimidation and multiple offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. He sought bail pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal, claiming the victim's testimony was untruthful and that the case arose from a domestic dispute. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the victim's detailed deposition and corroborating medical evidence of old penetrative sexual assault. The court examined the victim's testimony, the medical officer's report, and found no evidence supporting the applicant's defence. Given the seriousness of the offences and the corroborated evidence, the court denied bail and ordered the appeal to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted during the pendency of an appeal for offences punishable under IPC s.376(n), s.506(2) and POCSO Act s.4,6,8,12.
- Whether the victim's testimony and medical evidence negate the applicant's claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(n), 506(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal appeal
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO
- IPC
- life imprisonment
- medical evidence
- victim testimony
Judgment
1/4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1103 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1451 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2024
Surendrakumar Triyoginarayan Tiwari .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
…....
• Ms. Sagayamary M., Advocate for Applicant.
• Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Ms. Rekha Musale, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. These are the applications for bail pending final
disposal of the Appeal No.84 of 2024 preferred by the Applicant.
The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the learned
MANUSHREE
Additional Sessions Judge-2, Vasai, vide his Judgment and Order
NESARIKAR
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
dated 15/02/2022 passed in Special Case No.85/2016.
Date: 2026.09.02
10:52:02 +0530
Nesarikar
2/4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
2. The Applicant was convicted for commission of the
offence punishable u/s 376(n), 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code
and u/s 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- as the major punishment.
3. Heard Ms. Sagayamary M., learned Counsel for the
Applicant, Ms. Rekha Musale, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2 and Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is
in custody since 2016. The victim has not given truthful
evidence during the trial. The case was a result of fight between
the victim's mother and the Applicant who were in live-in-
relationship. The Applicant is falsely implicated.
5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the original
victim opposed these applications. They invited our attention to
the deposition of the victim and that of the Medical Officer. They
submitted that the victim's deposition was corroborated by the
Doctor’s evidence. They submitted that the offence is serious and
3/4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
hence the Applicant cannot be released on bail during pendency
of his Appeal.
6. We have considered these submissions, and in
particular, the evidence of the victim and the Medical Officer.
7. The defence of the Applicant was that his wife had an
extra-marital affair with the owner of the vehicle which was
driven by the Applicant, and therefore, this false case was
lodged by her. There is no direct or indirect evidence to support
his defence.
8. The victim was examined as P.W.2. At the relevant time,
in the year 2016, she was 8 years of age. She had lost her father.
But her mother was living with the present Applicant. At that
time, the victim was studying in 5 th standard. She deposed that
the Applicant used to lock her in a room and used to perform
sexual intercourse with her. This was going on since she was
studying in the 3rd standard. The Applicant used to threaten her.
On one occasion, he had not returned home for three days, and
therefore, during that period, she informed her mother about
what the Applicant was doing.
4/4 28-IA-1103-26-IN-APEAL-84-2024++.odt
9. Her cross-examination has not revealed anything in
favor of the Applicant. The medical evidence is led in the form
of evidence of P.W.5, Dr. Waghmare. The medical papers are also
produced. Her evidence shows that, in her opinion, there was
evidence of old penetrative vaginal sexual assault. This was also
noted down in the medical papers produced on record. There
were multiple tears of the hymen.
10. Thus, the victim's evidence is supported by the medical
evidence. The learned Judge considered these aspects and has
observed that considering the nature of offence, no benefit could
be granted to the Applicant.
11. Considering these circumstances, it is quite clear that
the offence is serious and the Applicant cannot be granted bail
during pendency of this Appeal.
12. Hence applications are rejected. Hearing of the Appeal
is expedited.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Checking your session…