Shaikh Irfan Moin Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Shaikh Irfan Moin Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suspension of the substantive sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order dated 24 April 2025, and release of the applicant on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- till disposal of the pending criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2025). Fees of Ms Naina Patil, appointed counsel for Respondent No.2, to be quantified as per the rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant by the impugned judgment and order should be suspended and the applicant released on bail pending disposal of his criminal appeal.

Court's answer

The criminal application is allowed and the sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order is suspended.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety bond (P.B. and S.B.) of Rs. 50,000/- till disposal of the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.) allowed a criminal application for suspension of sentence. The applicant, convicted by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Biloli in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2019 by judgment and order dated 24 April 2025 under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 11 punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count with a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count, had challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2025, which was pending. Noting that the applicant was on bail during the trial, was released on bail after the conviction order, and had deposited the fine amount, the Court held it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence and directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) till disposal of the appeal. Separately, the appearance of Ms Namita Thole, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, was discharged (she having been appointed as Law Clerk), and Ms Naina Patil was appointed to represent Respondent No.2, her fees to be quantified as per the rules.

907-APPLN-1728-25.odt

2025:BHC-AUG:28587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1728 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2025

Shaikh Irfan Moin VERSUS

..APPLICANT

State of Maharashtra and Another

..RESPONDENTS

Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.K. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State

Ms. Riya Pande, Advocate h/f Ms. Namita Thole, Advocate for respondent no.2 (appointed)

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 10^th OCTOBER, 2025

PER COURT :

Ms Pande, learned counsel, submitted that Ms Thole, learned counsel, is now appointed as Law Clerk, and therefore, she is unable to appear in the matter. In view of the same, the appearance of Ms Namita Thole, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, is discharged.

Ms Naina Patil, learned counsel, is hereby appointed to represent Respondent No.2 in this matter.

The applicant has filed this application to suspend the substantive sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order dated 24^th April, 2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Biloli in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2019 thereby convicting the applicant under Section 354-D of the

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 11 punishable under Section 12 of the

1 / 2

907-APPLN-1728-25.odt

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for both the offences.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the impugned judgment and record.

At the outset, it appears that during the trial, the applicant was on bail. After the Special Court passed the conviction order, the applicant was released on bail. The applicant has also deposited the fine amount with the Special Court. The applicant has also challenged the impugned judgment and order by filing a criminal appeal before this Court, and the same is pending. It will take time to finally decide.

Having considered the above facts, it would be appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order and release the applicant on bail.

As such, a criminal application is allowed. The sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order is hereby suspended, and the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand) till disposal of the appeal. Fees of Ms Naina Patil, learned counsel appointed to represent Respondent No.2, are to be quantified as per the rules.

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

SSD

2 / 2