Bombay High Court

JYOTIRAM BALASAHEB SAPKALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The High Court allowed the interim application, suspending the ten‑year sentence and granting bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Jyotiram Balasaheb Sapkal, was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC for rape in a special (atrocity) case and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, while being acquitted of charges under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail pending the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2025, invoking Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to CrPC Section 389). The court examined whether the applicant met the criteria for bail and suspension, noting that he had served over two years of the sentence, had no violations of bail conditions, and that the appeal raised a genuine question about the consensual nature of the alleged relationship. Finding that the applicant had a fair chance of success on the merits and that the balance of convenience favored suspension, the court ordered the sentence to be suspended and granted bail on a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties. The applicant was also directed to comply with reporting requirements and to appear regularly before the court during the pendency of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant can be suspended under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 pending the appeal.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the appeal based on the facts of the case.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 430
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(12), 3(2)(5)

Subjects

rape
IPC 376
section 430 BNS
bail pending appeal
sentence suspension
special atrocity case
consensual relationship
legal aid

Judgment

917-IA-1080-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1080 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2025
Jyotiram Balasaheb Sapkal ...Applicant
Versus.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
-----
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant. (through VC)
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Benazir Jamadar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 9th September, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard, Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Benazir

Jamadar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

2. By this Application, the Applicant has sought the following

substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) :-

a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
exercise its powers under section 430 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to S.
389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), and
may be pleased to suspend the substantive sentence
imposed upon the Applicant and he may be enlarged
Arjun 1
917-IA-1080-2025.doc

on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the
Appeal;

3. The Applicant is an Accused in Crime No. 24 of 2013, registered

at Vairag Police Station, Solapur Rural, for offences punishable under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC, 1860”), Sections

3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act, 1989”) and Section 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO

Act, 2012”).

4. Upon registration of Crime No. 24 of 2013, the Applicant was

arrested on 06.02.2013 and remained in jail until 25.04.2013, when he

was released on bail in the said crime.

5. Crime No. 24 of 2013 was registered as Special (Atro.) Case No.

21 of 2014. The Applicant was on bail throughout the trial, which

commenced in 2013 and culminated in the Judgment and Order of

conviction dated 30.07.2024 (“impugned judgment”).

6. By the impugned Judgment, the Applicant has been convicted of

the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. The Applicant has been acquitted of the offences punishable

under the SC/ST Act, 1989 and the POCSO Act, 2012. The Applicant
Arjun 2
917-IA-1080-2025.doc

was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of the IPC, 1860. The Applicant was taken into

custody on 30.07.2024 and has been in jail since then.

7. The accompanying Appeal was admitted on 22.07.2025.

8. Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits

that the relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 was

consensual. He further submits that there is sufficient material to

indicate that the relationship was indeed consensual and was not one of

lust but of love.

9. Ms. Benazir Jamadar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2,

submits that there is sufficient material on record to substantiate the

charge against the Applicant. She further submits that the Applicant has

been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC,

1860.

10. Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP, supports the impugned Judgment of

conviction and submits that the Trial Court has duly considered all the

requirements and has rightly convicted the Applicant.

11. As submitted by Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned Advocate for the

Arjun 3
917-IA-1080-2025.doc

Applicant, the issue, in view of the Applicant's acquittal on the charges

under the POCSO Act, 2012, would center on whether the relationship

was consensual or forcible, as alleged by Respondent No. 2.

12. Prima facie, a perusal of the impugned Judgment in the context

of the grounds raised by the Applicant in the memo of the Appeal

indicates that the Applicant has a fair chance of succeeding on the

merits.

13. The Applicant is in jail for a period of 2 years and 4 months from

the date the impugned Judgment was passed. There are no allegations

against the Applicant of his having either violated the bail conditions

during the pendency of Special (Atro.) Case No. 21 of 2014 or having

failed to appear before the Trial Court.

14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the

sentence being for 10 years and the Applicant having undergone 2 years

and 4 months of imprisonment, the Applicant's request to suspend the

sentence pending the Appeal is allowed.

15. This Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), on the

following conditions:-

Arjun 4
917-IA-1080-2025.doc

(a) During the pendency of Criminal Appeal

No. 782 of 2025, the sentence of imprisonment

imposed vide impugned Judgment and order dated

30.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Barshi, in

Special (Atro.) Case No. 21 of 2014, is suspended and

the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

execution of a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-,

with one or two sureties in like amount to the

satisfaction of the Special Judge, Barshi.

(b) Applicant shall regularly appear before

this Court as and when the Criminal Appeal No. 782 of

2025 is listed on the Causelist.

his release from jail, provide to the Investigating

Officer, Vairag Police Station, his residential address

with proof, the contact numbers and must inform the

Investigating Officer about the change in the same

from time to time.

16. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit Bench

Arjun 5
917-IA-1080-2025.doc

at Kolhapur, shall pay the legal fees payable under the Legal Aid

Scheme to Advocate Ms. Benazir Jamadar, who has appeared and

represented Respondent No. 2 in this Application.

17. Interim Application No. 1080 of 2025 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.09
22:08:01
+0530

Arjun 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…