Bombay High Court

MOHAMMAD YASIN MOHAMMAD YUSUFversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of a serious sexual offence and no case for bail, thus dismissing the application.

Summary

The applicant, convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for repeated sexual assault of a minor, sought suspension of his life sentence and bail pending appeal. He argued that the FIR was filed late, suggesting false implication and rendering medical evidence irrelevant. The State and the victim opposed the bail, emphasizing the victim's vulnerability, the applicant's exploitation of the situation, and the consistency of medical findings with sexual assault. The court examined the victim's testimony, the medical report indicating a healed hymenal tear, and the seriousness of the offences. Concluding that substantial evidence supported the conviction and that the offences were grave, the court found no basis for bail. The application for suspension of sentence and bail was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged false implication justify suspension of sentence or bail.
Whether the medical evidence and victim's testimony constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether the seriousness of offences under IPC and POCSO preclude bail pending appeal.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354, 376(2)(f)(i), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 6

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
POCSO Act
sexual assault
child victim
medical evidence
delay in FIR
life imprisonment

Judgment

SKN                         1 of 3                  22-IA-3489.25


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3489 OF 2025
                            IN
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2024

Mohammad Yasin Mohammad Yusuf.                …     Applicant.
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another.         …     Respondents.

                           __________
Mr.Aniket Vagal with Juhi Kadu and Savvy Kolhekar
for the Applicant.
Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, Addl.PP for the Respondent- State.
Ms.Jai Kanade (Appointed Advocate) with Prachiti Naik
for Respondent No.2.
                           __________

                 CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                         RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                 DATE    : 7th September 2026.
PC :


1.     This is an Application for suspension of sentence and to
release the Applicant on bail pending the Appeal.


2.     The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the Special
Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), Greater Mumbai vide judgment and
order dated 12th December 2023 passed in Special Case
No.1147/2020. The Applicant was convicted for commission of
offences punishable under section 376(2)(f)(i), 354 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code and under sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
SKN                            2 of 3                22-IA-3489.25


He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months. The Applicant is in custody since 30th October 2020.


3.         Heard Mr.Vagal for the Applicant, Ms.Deshmukh, learned
Addl.PP for the State and Ms.Kanade for Respondent No.2. With
the assistance of learned counsel we have perused the evidence
and, in particular the evidence of the victim and the medical
officer.


4.         The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
FIR is lodged by the aunt of the victim on 30 th October 2020 vide
CR No.317/2020 at Trombay Police Station. He submitted that
there is a delay in filing the FIR. Even as per the statement of the
victim, she had informed the first informant about this incident in
August 2020 and, yet, the FIR was deliberately lodged in October
2020.       This delay has remained unexplained, which shows
deliberate false implication of the Applicant. He submitted that
since the FIR was lodged belatedly the medical evidence will not
be of any importance in this particular case.


5.         The learned APP as well as learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 i.e. original victim have opposed this Application.             They
submitted that the victim was staying with her grandmother. The
Applicant was staying with the grandmother of the victim and he
committed this offence.
SKN                           3 of 3                   22-IA-3489.25


6.       We have considered the submissions. As rightly submitted
by the learned APP and the learned counsel for the victim, the
victim was helpless as she was aged around 14 years at the time of
incident.     She had no shelter.      Her mother had left her and
therefore she was at the mercy of her grandmother. The Applicant
was residing with the grandmother of the victim.               He took
advantage of the situation and committed this offence.         The date
of birth of the victim is 20 th December 2006. She was studying is
7th standard at that time. She has clearly deposed that in 2019 the
Applicant inserted his private part in her private part and
committed forcible sexual intercourse.      In August 2020 again he
repeated it and finally she told this incident to her aunt who
lodged the FIR.       The medical evidence in the form of PW-4
Dr.Shirsat supports her case. There was an old healed tear of the
hymen.      The opinion was that overall findings and circumstances
were     consistent with the sexual assault.     Thus,    the medical
evidence also supports the victim’s case.      The offence is serious.
There is sufficient evidence against the Applicant.       No case for
grant of bail is made out.


7.       Application is dismissed.


(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)            (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…