Bombay High Court

PARMESHWAR DNYANOBA MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: RAJNISH R VYAS

Holding

The sentence imposed on the applicant is suspended pending the decision on appeal.

Summary

Parmeshwar Dnyanoba Mane was convicted by the Additional Sessions and Special Judge in Latur under IPC sections 354 and 354‑B and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12 for sexual offences against a nine‑year‑old girl, receiving a three‑year concurrent sentence. He had been on bail throughout the trial, surrendered after conviction, paid the fine, and filed an appeal seeking bail and suspension of the sentence. The applicant argued that the prosecution’s case was flawed, citing false implication and improper recording of the victim’s age under CrPC sections 161 and 164. The State contended that, given the offence involved a minor, the sentence should not be suspended. The High Court, after noting the applicant’s clean bail record and lack of witness tampering, allowed the application, suspending the sentence pending the appeal and releasing the applicant on the same bail terms as the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether a sentence for offences under IPC 354, 354‑B and POCSO Act 8, 12 can be suspended pending appeal when the victim is a minor.
Whether the applicant’s bail record and lack of witness interference justify suspension of sentence.
Whether the prosecution’s evidence regarding the victim’s age and the manner of recording under CrPC sections 161 and 164 is sufficient.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354, 354-B
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
POCSO
sexual offences against child
IPC 354
IPC 354-B
appeal
false implication
age of victim

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9864
9-APPLN-929-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 929 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2026

Parmeshwar Dnyanoba Mane ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS

....
Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant
Mr. V.K. Kotecha A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
....

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 09th MARCH, 2026

PER COURT :

. This is an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence.

The applicant / accused has preferred an appeal challenging the judgment

and order dated 21st January, 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions and

Special Judge-3, Latur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 9 of 2024, by which he

was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and

354-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and under

Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2012’). The maximum sentence imposed

upon the applicant is of three years. The separate sentence awarded were

ordered to run concurrently.

1 / 3
9-APPLN-929-26.odt

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all throughout

the trial the applicant was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty.

According to him, there are good grounds to argue in the appeal. He further

submitted that after pronouncement of conviction, he surrendered to the

custody of the Court and thereafter his sentence was suspended. The fine

amount is also paid by the applicant.

3. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submits that the offence is against a

minor victim, and therefore, the sentence may not be suspended.

4. I have gone through the judgment impugned. The prosecution, in

order to bring home the charge, has examined five witnesses. PW 1 is the

informant, who has stated that PW 3 / victim was nine years old at the time

of incident. The accused caught hold the victim and pulled out her nicker.

After the victim shouted, the accused ran away from the spot. It is necessary

to mention here that one of the grounds raised by the applicant is regarding

false implication, since according to him the borrowed amount was demanded

from the informant and as PW 1 was not returning the same, false case came

to be filed against him. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant that

the story of prosecution under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has not traveled in proper manner

through Section 164 of Cr.P.C. According to him, even the age is not properly

proved.

2 / 3
9-APPLN-929-26.odt

5. It is necessary to mention here that the applicant was on bail

throughout the trial and he did not misuse his liberty. It is not even the case

of prosecution that the applicant has tried to influence the witnesses. The

sentence imposed upon the applicant is of fixed term and he can be called

upon to undergo the same once the appeal is otherwise decided. The

question of age of the victim, so also the different story advanced under

Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. will have to be looked into at the time of

final hearing of appeal. Hence, following order is passed :-

ORDER

(I) Criminal application is allowed.

(II) The sentence imposed upon the applicant by the Additional
Sessions and Special Judge-3, Latur in Special (POCSO)
Case No. 9 of 2024 dated 21 st January, 2026, convicting for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and
354-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 12
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
shall stand suspended till decision on appeal.

(III) The applicant be released on bail on the same terms and
conditions as were imposed by the trial Court.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD

3 / 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…