KOMAL SUNIL MORE @ KORIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                31-IA-1316-2025.DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1316 OF 2025
                                                        IN
                                            APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2025


                      Komal Sunil More Alias Kori                                    ..Applicant
                            Versus
                      State of Maharashtra and Anr                             …Respondents


                      Ms Shubhangi Parulekar, with Grishma Parab, for the Applicant.
                      Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, APP, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. Isha Hajare, i/b Dr Uday Warunjikar, for Respondent No.2.

                                                  CORAM:           N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATE :           6th AUGUST 2026


                      ORDER:

                      1.    This is an Application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge

                      the Applicant on bail during the pendecy of the Appeal.

                      2.    By a judgment and order dated 27th February 2025 in Special

                      Case No. 466 of 2021, the learned Special Judge at Pune, convicted the
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL               Applicant (A1) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A,
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA            342, 370(4), 370-A(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.08.06
19:38:52 +0530
                      1860 (“the Penal Code”) and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic

                      (Prevention) Act, 1956, and for the offence punishable under Section

                      370(4) of the Penal Code, the Applicant was sentenced to suffer
                      ARS                                    1/6
                                                        31-IA-1316-2025.DOC

Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with

default stipulation. For the rest of the offences sentences of varying

terms, but less than 10 years, and fine, were imposed on the Applicant.

3.    The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant is that the

Applicant trafficked the victim taking undue advantage of adverse

financial and social condition of the victim and engaged the victim for

sexual exploitation. The Applicant also allegedly lived on the earning of

the prostitution and induced and forced the victim for the purpose of

prostitution.

4.    The Applicant seeks the suspension of sentence during the

pendency of the Appeal asserting that the Applicant has an excellent

case on merits. The learned Special Judge has returned the finding of

guilt qua the Applicant ignoring the material contradictions and

improvement in the version of the first informant-victim which dents

the prosecution case. Moreover, the Applicant has been in custody since

12th April 2021 and has undergone almost half of the sentence.

5.    Ms. Shubhangi Parulekar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant,

would urge that the very fact that the victim was a minor at the time of

the alleged occurrence has not been firmly established. Secondly, the

evidence of the victim is full of contradictions and embellishments and

is ex-facie unbelievable. Moreover, the person who had allegedly

sexually exploited the victim, i.e., Jasaram Bhiyaram Sutar (A8) and


ARS                                  2/6
                                                         31-IA-1316-2025.DOC

Sunil Brijlal Kore (A10) have been enlarged on bail by this Court by

suspending their sentence. Ms. Parulekar further submitted that, by this

time, the Applicant has undergone more than half of the substantive

sentence of 10 years. Therefore, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged

on bail.

6.     Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, the learned APP for Respondent No.1-State

and Ms. Isha Hajare, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2,

appointed to espouse the cause of Respondent No.2, opposed the prayer

for suspension of sentence. It was submitted that, the impugned

judgment is based on correct evaluation of evidence. The testimony of

the victim squarely incriminates the Applicant. Thus the fact that the

sentence qua co-accused, Jasaram Bhiyaram Sutar (A8) and Sunil Brijlal

Kore (A10) has been suspended would not enure for the benefit of the

Applicant as the role of the Applicant is more grave and there is

overwhelming evidence against the Applicant.

7.    I have perused the impugned judgment, material on record and

the deposition of witnesses, especially the deposition of the victim.

8.    From the evidence of the victim it becomes clear that the victim

had narrated multiple instances of sexual exploitation by various

person, after the Applicant allegedly brought the victim to Pune and

kept her at various places. The victim wants the Court to believe that,




ARS                                   3/6
                                                         31-IA-1316-2025.DOC

the incidents of exploitation which commenced in the year 2018, lasted

for two years.

9.     At this juncture, it is trite, the evaluation of the evidence with a

view to find loopholes in the impugned judgment is not permissible.

The broad tenor of the material and evidence is required to be

appreciated to arrive at a prima facie finding whether the victim has a

fair chance of success in the Appeal.

10.   As noted above, in the case at hand, the substantive sentence qua

the co-accused who allegedly sexually exploited the victim has been

suspended albeit on the ground that the identity of the persons who

allegedly sexually exploited the victim was in the corridor of

uncertainty. The said fact may have a bearing on the indictment qua the

Applicant as the question of veracity of the evidence of the victim may

warrant consideration, especially in the light of the fact that the role

attributed to the Applicant was that of engaging the victim for sexual

exploitation and living on the earnings of the prostitution.

11.   Secondly, the Court finds that the probabilities of the case may be

required to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the Appeal.

Prima facie victim had sufficient maturity to understand the nature and

consequences of the acts and the circumstances. The period of two years

for which the victim was allegedly sexually exploited, that too at various

places including at the residence of the Applicant and co-accused, prima


ARS                                     4/6
                                                         31-IA-1316-2025.DOC

facie appears to be too long not to afford opportunties to have recourse

to the public authorities and the family member. It also prima facie

appears that a substantial part of testimony of the victim was

demonstrated to be an improvement. To what extent, these factors bear

upon the broad tenor of the prosecution case would warrant

consideration at the final hearing of the Appeal.

12.   The Applicant has been in custody since 12th April 2021. She has

undergone more than half of the sentence of 10 years for the major

offence punishable under Section 370(4) of the Penal Code. Having

regard to the large pendency of the cases, it is unlikely that this Appeal

can be heard and finally decided in near future.

13.   For the forgoing reasons, this Court is persuaded to exercise the

discretion in favour of the Applicant.

14.   Hence, the following order:

                              :ORDER:

      (i)    Application stands allowed.

      (ii)   The substantive sentence imposed on the Applicant,

      Komal Sunil More Alias Kori, by the learned Special Judge,

      Pune in Special Case No. 466 of 2021 (Crime No.

      72/2021, Bhor Police Station, Pune), stands suspended till

      the final disposal of the Appeal




ARS                                      5/6
                                                        31-IA-1316-2025.DOC

      (iii)   The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing a

      PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one or two

      sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

      learned Special Judge, Pune.

      (iv)    The Applicant shall not contact the first informant

      for any reason whatsoever or give threat or inducement to

      the first informant or any of her relatives or prosecution

      witnesses.

      (v)     The Applicant shall mark her presence at the Bhor

      Police Station on first Monday of every alternate month till

      the final disposal of the Appeal.

      (vi)    The Applicant shall appear in this Court as and

      when directed by the Court.

      (vii) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall

      furnish her cell phone number and residential address to

      the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in

      case of any change therein.

      Application disposed.

                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                   6/6