Bombay High Court
AKHTAR HUSAIN SAIFUDDIN KALADAGIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The trial court's life sentence is suspended during the pendency of the appeal and bail is granted subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The appellant, convicted under the POCSO Act and several IPC sections for sexual offences against his two daughters, was sentenced by a Special Judge to life imprisonment and a fine. The trial court's imposition of a life sentence for the remainder of his life was held to be contrary to settled law, and no appeal was filed by the State. After serving over 14 years in custody, the appellant sought bail pending the pending appeal. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's direction in Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, suspended the life sentence during the appeal and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, imposing reporting and residence conditions. The application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court could lawfully impose a life sentence for the remainder of the appellant's life under the POCSO Act and IPC provisions.
- Whether bail can be granted to a convicted person serving a life sentence for serious sexual offences pending appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court's guidelines in Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh apply to this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 376(2)(n), 502, 506(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- life imprisonment
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- appeal
- sentence suspension
- criminal procedure
Judgment
303-IA-1837-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1837 OF 2024
RAJESH
RUPALI
RAJESH WAKODIKAR IN
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.11
19:50:46
APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2017
+0530
Akhtar Husain Saifuddin Kaladagi .....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
.....
Mr. Sachin Salunke, for the Applicant.
Mr. A.A.Palkar, A.P.P for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik (Appointed Advocate) for the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant was convicted by the impugned Judgment and
Order dated 11th January, 2017 passed by the Special Judge, Pune
under POCSO Act, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)
(n), 323, 502 & 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, alongwith Section
4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous
Wakodikar 1/4
303-IA-1837-2024.doc
imprisonment for the remainder period of his life and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. It is a settled position that Trial Court could not have sentenced
the applicant for the remainder period of his life. No appeal has
been filed challenging the Order of the Trial Court by the State. The
applicant is in custody for more than 14 years and 9 months. The
allegation is no doubt serious and the applicant has been convicted
for the aforesaid offences, the victims are his two daughters.
4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant
that there was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the
mother of the victims, as a result of which a false complaint was
made. It is further submitted that the version of PW-1 and PW-2
victims are contradictory.
5. Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for the complainant
invited our attention to the findings to support their submissions that
the offence is serious and that the Trial Court has given cogent
reasons for convicting the applicant.
6. The applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more
Wakodikar 2/4
303-IA-1837-2024.doc
than 12 years in custody.
7. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant's
conduct in jail was unsatisfactory or that he has misused the liberty
when released on bail/furlough.
8. In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Saudan Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh 1, we are inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail with certain terms and conditions.
9. This appeal is likely to take some time to be heard finally
considering the pendency of older matters. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in Special
POCSO Case No. 253 of 2014 under the provisions of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, is
suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
(ii) The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697
Wakodikar 3/4
303-IA-1837-2024.doc
sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall report to the Mundhwa Police
Station, Pune, once in three month, on the first
Monday of the concerned month commencing October
2026.
(iv) The applicant shall furnish his residential address
and other contact information to the police station as
well as the Trial Court.
(v) The applicant shall not reside within the
jurisdiction of the police station where the victims
reside.
10. Application is allowed and disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 4/4
Checking your session…