SHAMSUNDAR NARSINGRAO NAIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41519


                                                                           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.
                                                       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