Dismissed¶28

Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2025IA/3186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail pending appeal dismissed; rape of 16-year-old mentally challenged minor; Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC; Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act, 2012; life imprisonment; Special Case (POCSO) No.37 of 2017, Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai; Criminal Appeal No.864 of 2024; C.R.No.38 of 2017, Tulinj police station; incident 15/01/2017; custody since 19/01/2017; direct evidence of victim PW3 and sister PW5; medical evidence hymen tear positive for sexual assault; gravity of offence and quality of evidence; Bombay High Court; Kotwal & Chandak JJ.; decided 8 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the gravity of the offence and the quality of evidence, no case for grant of bail pending appeal is made out. ¶27

Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, convicted under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life, should be released on bail pending appeal.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the gravity of the offence and the quality of evidence, no case for grant of bail pending appeal is made out.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

There is direct evidence of the prosecutrix/victim, her sister and the medical evidence; the offence is very serious, committed against a girl who was not only a minor but also mentally challenged.

¶27

Key takeaways

The cross-examination of the victim (PW3) does not show anything in favour of the Applicant.ratio¶22
Medical evidence showed injury to the hymen with a fresh tear; the medical finding was consistent with sexual intercourse and positive for sexual assault.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending appeal refused. The Bombay High Court (Sarang V. Kotwal & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.) dismissed Interim Application No.3186 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.864 of 2024 filed by Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai by Judgment and Order dated 28/06/2024 in Special Case (POCSO) No.37 of 2017 for offences under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default further S.I. six months). The victim was a 16-year-old mentally challenged girl; the incident occurred on 15/01/2017 (C.R.No.38 of 2017, Tulinj police station, Vasai). The Court perused the deposition of the victim (PW3) and her sister (PW5, aged 12 at deposition), who gave direct evidence of the rape, noted that the cross-examination did not show anything in favour of the Applicant, and relied on medical evidence dated 18/01/2017 showing hymenal injury with fresh tear, consistent with sexual intercourse and positive for sexual assault. Holding the offence very serious — committed against a girl who was not only a minor but also mentally challenged — and considering the gravity of the offence and quality of evidence, the Court found no case for bail pending appeal and dismissed the application.

¶1

Digitally signed by HEMANT HEMANT CHANDERSEN CHANDERSEN SHIV SHIV Date: 2025.07.11 17:05:43 +0300

¶2

14.ia3186.24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3186 OF 2024 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.864 OF 2024

¶6

Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud .. Applicant

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Tejesh Dande with Trushna Shah for the Applicant. Ms. Kranti T. Hiwrale APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent No.2, through the Legal Aid.

¶10

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 8^th JULY, 2025

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

This is an Application for bail pending Appeal. The Applicant was original accused in Special Case (POCSO) No.37 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai. The learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 28/06/2024 convicted the Applicant for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(i)(j)(l) of I.P.C. and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Applicant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine

¶13

H. C. Shiv 1/4

¶14

14.ia3186.24.doc

¶15

of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for six months.

¶16

Heard Mr.Tejas Dande, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Ms.Kranti Hiwrale, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Ms.Manisha Jagtap, learned Advocate, appointed through the Legal Services Authority for Respondent No.2.

¶17

The prosecution case is that the victim in this case was 16 years of age. She was mentally challenged. The Applicant was residing in neighborhood. The incident occurred on 15/01/2017. On that day the Applicant took the victim to his house and committed rape on her. The victim’s mother was informed by the victim. On this basis C.R.No.38 of 2017 was registered with Tulinj police station, Vasai. The investigation was carried out resulting in the trial and conviction.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is in custody since 19/01/2017. The evidence is based on the deposition of the victim and her younger sister. Both of them were not capable of giving proper answers and therefore, from that angle the evidence need to be tested. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 as well as learned APP on the other hand relied on the same evidence. They submitted that the learned Judge is satisfied with their capabilities of understanding the proceedings. There is no infirmity in their evidence. They

¶19

H. C. Shiv 2/4

¶20

14.ia3186.24.doc

¶21

are supported by the medical evidence.

¶22

We have considered the submissions and we have, in particular, perused the evidence of the victim and her sister. The victim was examined as PW3. She has narrated the incident that, on that day she was playing with her sister. The Applicant called her. He took her inside his house. She described the incident of rape. The Applicant had also beaten her when she protested. When she was returning home, she met her sister on the road. She told her mother about the incident. The cross examination does not show anything in favour of the Applicant.

¶23

Her sister was examined as PW5. She was 12 years of age at the time of deposition. She has also corroborated the incident. She was playing with the victim. The Applicant took the victim to his house. PW5 continued playing with others, but after sometime she saw that the victim was not there. She ran towards the house of the Applicant. She climbed on the steel door and pushed aside the curtain by putting her hand. She saw the actual incident of rape.

¶24

Besides this evidence, there is a medical evidence which shows that the victim was examined on 18/01/2017. There was injury to hymen and there was a fresh tear. The medical finding was consistent with sexual intercourse and was positive for sexual assault. Thus, there is direct evidence

¶25

H. C. Shiv 3/4

¶26

14.ia3186.24.doc

¶27

of the prosecutrix/victim, her sister and the medical evidence. The offence is very serious. The Applicant has committed this offence against a girl, who was not only a minor but also mentally challenged. Considering the gravity of the offence and quality of evidence, no case for grant of bail pending Appeal is made out.

¶28

Interim Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

¶30

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶31

4/4

¶32

H. C. Shiv

Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanehi Shrikisan Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neeraj S/O Anil Kumar Singh and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nagesh Devram Gholap vs the State of Maharashtra

Bajirao @ Babu Damodar Waghmare vs the State of Maharahstra

Shahabuddin N. Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Brijesh Ramrit Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nilesh Ramkrishna Mhatre and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.