Bombay High Court
POOJA KIRAN GHARATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
On prima facie consideration, the appellants have a reasonable chance of success in the appeals and therefore merit enlargement of bail.
Summary
The High Court considered two interim applications seeking enlargement of bail for convicted appellants in a Special (POCSO) case. The appellants were convicted under various IPC and POCSO provisions for sexual offences against a minor who is also mentally disabled. The counsel argued lack of photographic evidence, delay in filing the FIR, and a DNA report that exonerated one accused, asserting a reasonable chance of success on appeal. The State contended that the victim's testimony was sufficient for conviction and opposed bail. After a prima facie assessment, the Court found the appellants likely to succeed on appeal, had no criminal history, and were not flight risks, and therefore granted bail with conditions, disposing the interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to convicted persons pending appeal when there is a reasonable chance of success.
- Whether the absence of photographic evidence, delay in FIR, and DNA test results affect the merit of bail.
- Whether the sole testimony of a minor, mentally disabled victim suffices for conviction and impacts bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109, 340 r/w 34, 341, 366A, 376(2)(j)(l)(n)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 17, 3, 4, 5(j)(ii), 5(k), 6
Subjects
- bail
- criminal appeal
- POCSO
- conviction
- DNA evidence
- minor victim
- mental disability
- prima facie
- interim application
Judgment
32-APEAL-215-2025.DOC
Rekha Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 868 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2025
Pooja Kiran Gharat …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.870 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2025
Danish Abdulla Raheman Malik …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil i/b P. B. Gole, for the Appellants/Applicants in
both the Appeals/ Interim Applications.
Ms. Shilpa Gajare, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. C. K. Pendse, for the Respondent No.2 in Cri. Appeal No. 215 of
2025 and IA No. 868 of 2025.
Ms. Komal Sinha, for the Respondent No.2 in Cri. Appeal No. 216
of 2025 and IA No. 870 of 2025.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 17th JANUARY 2026
PC:-
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 868 OF 2025
AND
REKHA INTERIM APPLICATION NO.870 OF 2025
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed
by REKHA
PRAKASH PATIL
Date: 2026.01.17
18:26:59 +0530
Page 1 of 5
th
17 January 2026
32-APEAL-215-2025.DOC
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks
deletion of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; i.e., the original Accused
Nos. 1 and 2 from the array of Respondents. Amendment be
carried out forthwith.
2. These Interim Applications are for enlargement on bail by
the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 14 of
2022 whereby applicant/accused No.1-Danish Abdulla Raheman
Malik was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
340 r/w 34, 341, 376(2)(j)(l)(n)of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”)
and under Sections 3 P/u/sec. 4, u/sec. 5(j)(ii), 5(k) P/u/sec.6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“
POCSO’) and applicant/accused No. 2-Pooja Kiran Gharat was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j)(l)
(n) r/w 109 and 366A, 340 r/w 34, 341 of the Indian Penal Code
(“IPC”) and under Sections 5(j)(ii), u/sec. 5(k) r/w 17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“ POCSO’)
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that
the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the fact that the
victim was threatened to subject herself to sexual intercourse with
accused No.1 on the basis of her photographs being taken with
one boy. It is his submission that no such evidence is placed on
record by the prosecution before the Trial Court. It is his further
submission that there is delay in lodging of the First Information
Report, so also, the DNA test does not implicate the
applicant/accused No.1 in the said crime. It is his submission that
during the course of the trial the accused were on bail and
Page 2 of 5
th
17 January 2026
32-APEAL-215-2025.DOC
considering no possibility of Appeals being heard in short period
time, so also, having regard to the fact that there is reasonable
chances of success of the applicants/appellants in the Appeals,
they be enlarged on bail. The applicants/appellants have no
criminal history.
4. Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2 opposed the Applications, firstly on the ground that the
victim is not only minor but is also a mentally disabled person. It
is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that
there was any reason for the victim to falsely involve accused in
this crime, one of whom is a friend of the victim. It is further
argued that it is settled position of law that on the basis of the sole
statement of the victim, conviction can be recorded.
5. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the
propositions sought to be canvased by the counsel for Respondent
No.2 that conviction of an accused can base upon the sole
testimony of the victim which is of sterling quality. Similarly, in
order to enable the applicants/appellants to seek bail during the
pendency of the Appeals, they will have to make out a prima facie
case of reasonable chance of success in the Appeals.
6. Herein the case the prosecution has come out with a specific
case with regard to the victim being forced to sexual intercourse
on the basis of her photographs with one boy. Admittedly, no
such photograph is placed on record. The basis for compelling her
to subject herself to the sexual intercourse has not been
Page 3 of 5
th
17 January 2026
32-APEAL-215-2025.DOC
established before the Trial Court. Apart from this, the DNA test
report absolves the applicant/accused No.1 from the paternity
test. The victim has denied the relationship with any other
person. In such case doubt is created with her version in view of
the fact that DNA report does not support case of prosecution. It
is pertinent to note that as per the case of the prosecution, the
victim was taken by applicants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 to a cottage.
There is no evidence even to indicate the victim was seen even
with these accused persons. It is further admitted fact that CCTV
footage was available at the relevant place, which has not been
collected as admitted by the Investigating Officer.
7. Having regard to the aforestated facts, it can be said that
the applicants/appellants have reasonable chance of success in the
Appeals. The Appeals are not likely to be heard in short time.
They have no criminal history. They are not likely to flee from
justice. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(a) The Applicants/Appellants be enlarged on bail on
furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one
surety in the like amount.
(b) The Applicants/Appellants not to contact the victim or
her family members in any manner whatsoever.
Page 4 of 5
th
17 January 2026
32-APEAL-215-2025.DOC
(c) The Applicant/Accused No.1 is directed not to enter
the jurisdiction of Taluka-Alibag till decision of the
present Appeal.
(d) Any breach of aforestated condition shall result into
forthwith cancellation of bail.
8. In view of the above, Interim Applications stand disposed of.
9. It is clarified that the above observations are made on prima
facie consideration of the material on record and the same shall
not bind the parties during the final hearing of the Appeals.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 5 of 5
th
17 January 2026
Checking your session…