VICKY GOPAL THAPA @ SAGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                                 18-IA-1002-2006.doc


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        INTERIM APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2026
                                                       WITH
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1363 OF 2023

                      Vicky Gopal Thapa @ Sagar                                ... Applicant
                            Vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                          ... Respondents

                                                      ****
                      Mr. Sujeet Bugade, Appointed Advocate for the Applicant.
                      None for Respondent No.2.
         Digitally
         signed by
                      Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for Respondent-State.
         SHARADA
SHARADA  RANGNATH
RANGNATH WAHULE
WAHULE   Date:
         2026.08.28
         17:34:45
                                                      ****
         +0530




                                           CORAM :     SARANG V. KOTWAL AND
                                                       RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                           DATE    :   25th AUGUST 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.        This is an application for bail pending appeal. The appeal has

                      been preferred by the Applicant against the judgment and order dated

                      9th May 2023, passed by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act,

                      Greater Mumbai, in POCSO Special Case No.821 of 2020. By the said

                      judgment, the Applicant was convicted for the commission of offences

                      punishable under Section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

                      4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act. The major sentence imposed upon the

                      Applicant is imprisonment for life, which is to mean imprisonment for

                      the remainder of his natural life, besides the imposition of a fine of Rs.

                      1,00,000/-.



                                                           1
                      Sharada
                                                           18-IA-1002-2006.doc


2.        Heard Mr. Bugade, learned counsel for the Applicant and Ms.

Kak, learned APP for Respondent-State.


3.        The prosecution case is unfolded through the evidence of the

victim, who was examined as PW-2. In all 9 witnesses were examined,

including the Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination.


4.        Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the ingredients

of the offences are not made out. The important witness, Teena, has not

been examined, and therefore, the Applicant deserves to be released on

bail. He has been in custody since 5 th August 2020. The appeal is not

likely to be decided at an early date.


5.        Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the offences are

serious. The sentence is for the remainder of the natural life of the

Applicant. She submitted that the evidence of the victim and the

medical evidence are consistent and, therefore, no case for grant of bail

is made out.


6.        We have considered these submissions. As mentioned earlier, the

victim was examined as PW-2. She has narrated that at the time of

incident she was 4 years of age. At the time of her deposition she was

around 7 years age. There is no disputes about her age. She deposed

that one Teena aunty called her. She gave her snacks. After having food

Teena aunty went to wash plates. The Applicant took the victim to his



                                      2
Sharada
                                                            18-IA-1002-2006.doc


room. She thereafter narrated the incident that the Applicant inserted

finger in her private parts. In the meantime the victim’s mother came

there looking for her. She saw that there was bleeding from the victim’s

parts. She told her mother about the incident. Her mother took her to

the doctor. There is nothing in the cross examination which would help

the defence in this case.


7.        The medical officer was examined as PW-9, Dr. Ganveer. She had

examined the victim. She deposed that at the relevant time she was

attached to J.J. Medical College as Junior resident doctor. On general

examination of the victim, she saw that there were blood stains on her

underwear. There were milky white stains over labia majora and labia

minora. Hymenal injury was seen. The edges fresh. There was bleeding

at 7 o’clock position. There was edema and there was a complete

hymenal tear. The victim was examined after three and half hours of the

incident. The overall findings were consistent with the sexual

intercourse/ assault. The report was produce at Exhibit-13.


8.        These facts show that the victim’s case is fully supported by the

medical evidence of the Medical Officer. The non-examination of Teena

does not help the defence. The medical evidence is very strong. In view

of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the offence is grave

and that the Applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. There is

sufficient evidence against him.


                                      3
Sharada
                                                            18-IA-1002-2006.doc


9.        The Application is therefore rejected.




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




                                        4
Sharada