Bombay High Court
ABHIMANYU UDDHAV JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The application for suspension of sentence and bail was rejected.
Summary
The applicant, Abhimanyu Uddhav Jadhav, sought suspension of his four‑year sentence and bail after being convicted by the Special and Sessions Judge, Beed, under Sections 333, 74, 75, 79 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act for sexual offences against an 11‑year‑old girl. He argued that the victim’s testimony was doubtful, he had not fled the police, and the allegations of human trafficking were false, contending there were good grounds for appeal. The State and the victim’s counsel countered that the evidence was cogent, the victim was a minor as proved by a birth certificate, and the applicant had prior similar convictions. The High Court examined the record, found the victim’s age established and the prosecution’s evidence uncontradicted in cross‑examination, and concluded there was no merit to suspend the sentence. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence and bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the evidence against the applicant under the POCSO Act is sufficient to deny bail and suspension of sentence
- Whether prior criminal antecedents affect the discretion to grant suspension of sentence
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 333, 351(2), 74, 75, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 7, 8
- Registration of Births and Deaths Act
Subjects
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- conviction
- appeal
- evidentiary standards
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41353
Cri-Apln-1939-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1939 OF 2026
IN APEAL/391/2026
ABHIMANYU UDDHAV JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.…
Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant
Ms Chaitali R. Chaudhari – Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 – State
Ms Monica Bagwe, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 07 September, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 September, 2026
O R D E R :-
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail in consequence to the judgment and order of
conviction recorded by learned Special and Sessions Judge, Beed,
in Special (POCSO) Case No.199 of 2024, dated 30.03.2026,
convicting the applicant for the offence under Sections 333, 74,
75, 79, 351(2) of B. N. S. and under Sections 7 and 8 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
1 of 4
(( 2 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that, the applicant
is sentenced to suffer four years imprisonment. He has already
undergone one year and eleven months imprisonment i.e. almost two
years. That the complainant’s evidence is doubtful. Moreover, the
conduct of the applicant, i.e. he did not flee even upon the arrival of
the police force, also supports his case. In fact, there is false
implication of the applicant on the allegation that the applicant was
indulging in human trafficking. There are good grounds to succeed in
the appeal. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, it is
respectfully submitted that the sentence imposed upon the applicant
be suspended.
3. The learned APP, as well as the learned counsel for the
victim, opposed the application on the ground that there is cogent
and reliable evidence against the applicant. That, after a full-fledged
trial, the applicant has been convicted. From the evidence of the
victim, it is proved that she was a minor at the relevant time. The
applicant also has criminal antecedents, having indulged in similar
offences. For the aforesaid reasons, they both urge to reject the
application.
2 of 4
(( 3 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026
4. Heard. Perused the papers. It appears that the applicant
was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 74, 75, 79
and 351(2) of the B.N.S., and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The victim was stated to
be 11 years and 06 months old. In support thereof, prosecution has
placed on record birth certificate of the victim issued under the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act by the Municipal Council, Beed.
Therefore, the age of the victim is proved.
5. There are allegations that, when victim’s mother returned
home at around 3:00 p.m., at that time she noticed accused present in
her house wearing only minimal clothing. Victim thereafter reported
to her mother that the accused had entered their house and
threatened her to remove her clothes. Thereafter, he allegedly placed
his fingers on her private part, pressed her chest, and kissed her. On
receiving such information, mother appears to have lodged the
complaint.
6. Prima facie, nothing damaging appears to have been
brought out in the cross-examination of the victim or the informant.
No substantial point on the merits is found so as to warrant
suspension of the sentence. Accordingly, following order is passed:-
3 of 4
(( 4 )) Cri-Apln-1939-2026
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is rejected.
(ii) Fees of learned counsel Ms. Monica Bagwe, appointed for
respondent No.2, be paid by the High Court Legal Services
Sub-Comittee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
4 of 4
Checking your session…