SURAJSINGH HIRANSINGH RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                            39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt
                                                1

This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes order dated 29.06.2026.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2026
                           IN APEAL/621/2025
                                 WITH
             CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2204 OF 2025
                           IN APEAL/621/2025
                       SURAJSINGH HIRANSINGH RATHOD
                                  VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
                                      ......
             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kunal Vidyadhar Patil i/by
                           Adv. Rajnandini P. Katkar

                   APP for Respondent-State : Mr. Nitin B. Patil

           Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Adv. Tanvi Lad (Appointed)
                                     ......

                                        CORAM         : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                         DATE         : 22nd JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :
1.          Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.


2.          The Applicant has approached this Court seeking suspension of
the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in Special Case No.
54/2023. By order dated 31.05.2025, the Principal Sessions Judge,
Special Court (POCSO), Wai, Satara under the POCSO Act, convicted the
Applicant for offences punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5 of
the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. The
Applicant now seeks suspension of the said sentence.


3.         The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
was aged 19 years and the victim was aged 15 years at the time of the
NAJEEB..
                                                           39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt
                                       2

incident. The Applicant was in a love affair with the victim. The
testimony of the victim suggests that she had left her house on
25.11.2015 following a quarrel with her mother and had gone to
Nalewadi to visit her ailing grandfather. Thereafter, she was taken to
Nanded and later to Latur, where she stayed at a lodge until 08.12.2015.
During this period, she had sexual intercourse with the accused under the
promise of marriage. The learned Counsel further submits that the
statement of the applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. initially
after she was found by the police authorities differs materially from the
testimony of the complainant during trial. The applicant and the
complainant girl were in a love relationship at the time of the incident,
and hence the incident occurred. The testimony itself shows that there
was no enticement on the part of the applicant to take the victim away
from the lawful guardianship of her parents. The Applicant was arrested
after registration of the offence and was released on regular bail on
19.01.2016. Following the conviction judgment dated 31.05.2025 passed
by the learned trial Court, the Applicant was arrested and has been in
custody since then. The Applicant is engaged in labour work and is
willing to provide local surety if released on bail. He has no criminal
antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed
by this Court.


4.         The learned APP as well as the learned appointed counsel strongly
oppose the appeal on the ground that the victim was a minor at the time
of the incident. The victim’s date of birth is 18.11.2000, and the incident
took place in the intervening night of 24–25.11.2015. The victim has
specifically stated that the Applicant committed sexual intercourse
against her will. The Applicant is involved in a serious offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a minor girl, is a resident

NAJEEB..
                                                           39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt
                                      3

of the same village where the Applicant resides. The Applicant is now
married and residing at Satara, and therefore there is every likelihood
that he may disturb or threaten the Complainant and her family. There is
a strong possibility that the Applicant may again intimidate the
Complainant and her family members if released on bail. Hence, the
application for suspension of sentence liable to be rejected.


5.         I have gone through the paperbook of the learned trial Court,
which contains the testimony of the complainant, referred to as ‘ABC’. A
perusal of the same shows that the victim specifically stated that she had
called the present Applicant on the telephone after quarreling with her
mother, as she had visited Nalewadi on 24.11.2014 to see her ailing
grandfather. It was thereafter that the Applicant took the victim girl along
with him. There are no allegations that the Applicant enticed the minor
victim girl or took her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents.
The Applicant was initially arrested after registration of the offence on
15.12.2015 but was released on regular bail on 19.01.2016. There are no
allegations of the Applicant violating any of the conditions imposed by
the learned trial Court while granting bail. The Applicant has been in
custody since 31.05.2025, following the judgment passed by the Special
Court in Special Case No. 54/2023. The prosecutrix is aged 15 years, and
the age of the Applicant, who was 19 years at the time of incident. The
Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Mahadev
Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, SCC OnLine Bom 6204 (2015), was
pleased to observe as under :


      “7. In the case of S.Varadarajan (supra) though the age of
      consent though as per law was 18 years, when the girl eloped
      with the accused, she was approximately 17 years and 9
      months old. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.

NAJEEB..
                                                              39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt
                                        4

      Varadarajan has distinguished Section 361 on the point of
      taking from the guardian or enticing the girl and the girl
      herself leaving the house of the parents of her own and
      accused allowing her to be in his company and has held that
      it not a case of rape. In the case of S. Varadarajan, the matter
      was finally heard and the accused was convicted. In appeal,
      the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be culled out
      that if a girl takes initiative or she is active in taking decision
      of going away with the boy and she understands the meaning
      of man-woman relationship and of marriage, then the rigor of
      offence is reduced.


      8.     It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan was
      decided in the year 1967 when the women were not enjoying
      the freedom which today the women have. Albeit the Hon'ble
      Supreme Court then has taken a pragmatic view and has
      acquitted Varadarajan. Now we come across such cases
      everyday. If a girl is a minor between the age group of 15 to
      18 years and if it can be safely inferred that her consent was
      obvious, then it is a mitigating circumstance. Some trial
      Courts dealing with such Bail Applications, especially after
      Nirbhaya case, started taking a strict approach and the
      accused are denied the bail only on the ground that the
      prosecutrix being minor below 18 years, her consent is
      immaterial, therefore, in the case of rape on such minor, no
      bail can be granted. This is a matter of concern.”



6.         The appeal was admitted on 04.08.2025 and will come up in due
course for hearing. Considering the pendency of the appeal, it is evident
that the final hearing will take its own time to reach. In view of the
aforesaid circumstances, and taking into account the willingness of the
applicant to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, I
am inclined to suspend the sentence by releasing the Applicant on bail.
Hence the following order :

NAJEEB..
                                                              39.Cri.Appeal-621-2025.odt
                                        5

                                    ORDER

(I)        Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 stands allowed.

(II)   The sentence imposed on the Applicant in Special Case No.
54/2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO)
vide judgment dated 31.05.2025, the sentence stands suspended. The
Applicant – Surajsingh Hiransingh Rathod be released on regular bail, on
furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with two sureties in the like amount until the final hearing and
disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025.

(III) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and
shall not influence the witnesses.

(IV) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to the
Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of
himself and two of the near relatives.

(V)    The Applicant shall attend the Wai Police Station, District Satara,
on the 1st day of January every year.

(VI)       The Applicant shall not contact or the threaten the Complainant.

(VII) Failure on the part of the Applicant shall entitle the prosecution to
seek cancellation of bail.

(VIII) The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fees of the
appointed Counsel, which are quantified at Rs. 6,000/-.

(IX)       Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 stands disposed of.

(X)        In view of Criminal Interim Application No. 262/2026 being
allowed,      nothing   survives   in   Criminal    Interim   Application         No.
2204/2025, which accordingly stands disposed of.


                                                   [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ]
                                                         JUDGE
NAJEEB..