BABLU @ AMIR SHABBIR BALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                         30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

                                                                                   Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2600 OF 2026
                                                  IN
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025

                      Mr. Bablu @ Amir Shabbir Bale                         ...Applicant-
                                                                                Appellant
                                       Versus
                      The State Of Maharashtra and ors.                  …Respondents

                      Mr. Fakhruddin Khan, for the Applicant - Appellant.
SANTOSH
                      Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State – Respondent No.1.
SUBHASH               Ms. Kamal Sinha, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                               CORAM:   N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Date: 2026.09.05
12:58:35 +0530                                         DATED:   3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      Order:-

                      1.   This is an application for suspension of sentence and to

                      enlarge the Applicant on bail.

                      2.   In fact, this is the second application for bail. The first

                      application being IA/2001/2025 came to be dismissed as

                      withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer for suspension of

                      sentence in the event the appeal is not heard within a period of

                      six months, by an order dated 12th January, 2026.

                      3.   The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant and co-

                      accused Shabbir Bale, who was the father of the Applicant, and

                      the prosecution against whom abated as he passed away on 5 th


                                                       1/6
                                 30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

August, 2023, was that, late Shabbir (A1) was working as a

junior clerk in the Government Senior and Junior Girls Hostel,

Shirur, District Pune. Late Shabbir (A1) and the Applicant

Bablu (A2) were residing in the employees quarters situated

adjacent to the girls hostel. An enquiry by the Superintendent

revealed that the girls were subjected to sexual assault by late

Shabbir (A1) and the Applicant (A2), on multiple occasions. The

accused were thus prosecuted for the offenses punishable under

Sections 376 and 376C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the

Penal Code’), and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the POCSO Act, 2012’).

4.   After appraisal of the evidence and material on record, the

learned Special Judge (POCSO), Pune, by a judgment and order

dated 22nd April, 2025, was persuaded to convict the Applicant

for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code

and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentence him to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of

Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation, on each count.

5.   I have heard Mr. Fakhruddin Khan, the learned Counsel

for the Applicant, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP for the State,

and Ms. Komal Sinha, the learned Counsel appointed to

espouse the cause of Respondent No. 2.

                              2/6
                                      30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

6.   Mr.   Khan,      the   learned    Counsel   for   the   Applicant,

submitted that the Applicant was roped in only for being the

son of the deceased accused Shabbir (A1). The genesis of the

prosecution was in the dispute that late Shabbir had with Smt.

Chauhan, the head of the Girls Hostel at Shirur. To wreak

vengeance, the girls were set up to make false allegations of

sexual assault and harassment against late Shabbir (A1) and

the Applicant (A2).

7.   Mr. Khan further submitted that the Applicant had

allegedly sexually assaulted PW-5, who was then an inmate in

the girls hostel. The other victims have not attributed any role to

the Applicant. The testimony of PW-5, according to Mr. Khan, is

unworthy of credence. It was not established that PW-5 was a

child. Nor, the medical evidence supports the claim of PW-5, as

the Medical Officer conceded that he can not state with

certainty that the victims had sexual intercourse. Moreover, the

victim had made allegations of sexual assault and harassment

against other persons as well. And those accused have been

enlarged on bail.      All these circumstances, according to Mr.

Khan, render the Applicant's defense of false prosecution

imminently probable and, thus, it can be said that the Applicant

has a strong case on merits.


                                 3/6
                                  30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

8.    It was further submitted that the Applicant was on bail

during the trial, barring the initial period of 5 months and 18

days of his arrest. It was not the case of the prosecution that

the Applicant had abused his liberty. Thus, the Applicant be

enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

9.    In opposition to this, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP,

submitted that it was a case of sexual assault on the children

who were in the protective custody of Shabbir (A1) and, by

extension, the Applicant. The offences are grave. There is direct

evidence to show the complicity of the Applicant. Therefore, the

Applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

10.   Ms. Komal Sinha, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.

2, supplemented the submissions of the learned APP.

11.   I have perused the testimony of the victim (PW-5).       The

victim has deposed in clear and categorical terms that the

Applicant committed penetrative sexual assault upon her on

multiple occasions, and after each act, the Applicant used to

give her a pill and threatened her not to disclose the incident to

anyone, lest she would be killed. It it trite, the testimony of the

victim of a sexual offence, in law, does not require any

corroboration. On the touchstone of prudence, prima facie,

there are testimonies of multiple witnesses who have sought to

                               4/6
                                  30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

corroborate the version of the victim, in one or the other form.

The circumstances and behavior attributable to the victim

which aroused the suspicion and inquiry with the victim girls

and the resultant disclosure of the startling facts has been

deposed to by the witnesses. Thus, at this stage, it is legally

impermissible to embark upon a meticulous evaluation of the

evidence and pick up the shortcomings and the loopholes in the

prosecution case.

12.   The evidence indicates that at the time of the alleged

occurrence, the victim was 14 years of age. Thus, at this stage,

the submissions of Mr. Khan premised on the absence of the

evidence to show that the victim was a child cannot be

countenanced. Likewise, the submission on behalf of the

Applicant that the victim had lodged reports of sexual

harassment and assault against other persons does not advance

cause of the applicant as it is in the destitution and

vulnerability the victim that the predators sense an opportunity

to sexually exploit such victims. Therefore, the mere fact that

the victim was constrained to lodge reports by itself cannot be a

ground to disbelieve the version of the victim, especially at this

stage.

13.   Cumulatively, this is not a case where the Court can

                               5/6
                                    30-IA2600-2026INAPEAL564-2025.DOC

legitimately draw an inference that the Applicant has a very

strong chance of success in the appeal and, therefore, the

sentence deserves to be suspended.

14.     Resultantly, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence,

the following order:

                            :ORDER:

(i)     The application stands rejected.

(ii)    The hearing of the appeal stands expedited.

(iii)   The appeal be listed for final hearing in the week

        commencing from 12th October, 2026.



                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                 6/6