Mainuddin Ajijullah Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025IA/3702/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail; POCSO Act Sections 7 and 8; aged accused 77 years; 2 years 6 months 8 days sentence undergone; on bail during trial; State objection of heinous offence; PR bond Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties; bonds before Special Judge/Sessions Judge; Interim Application No.3702 of 2024; Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Shivkumar Dige, J.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence pending disposal of the appeal, subject to furnishing a PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, bonds to be furnished before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge. ¶¶33

Mainuddin Ajijullah Ansari vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the Applicant (convicted under Sections 7 and 8, POCSO Act, 2012) should be suspended pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2024, with bail granted accordingly. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the Applicant is suspended pending disposal of the appeal, subject to the Applicant furnishing a PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court was influenced by the facts that the Applicant had undergone 2 years 6 months and 8 days out of the 3-year sentence, was 77 years old, and was on bail during the trial; considering these facts it passed the order of suspension.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The bail bonds are to be furnished before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.; decided 29 April 2025) — Interim Application No.3702 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2024: Applicant Mainuddin Ajijullah Ansari, convicted under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- (with default simple imprisonment of 6 months), had undergone 2 years 6 months and 8 days of the sentence, was 77 years old, and had been on bail during the trial. Despite the Additional Public Prosecutor's objection that the offence was heinous, the Court suspended the substantive sentence pending disposal of the appeal, subject to the Applicant furnishing a PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge; the Interim Application was disposed of.

¶1

1 43 ia 3702-24 in apeal 1001-24-cr.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3702 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1001 OF 2024

¶6

Mainuddin Ajijullah Ansari … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nadeem Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the State.

¶9

Ms. Komal Sinha, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. Suresh Chopade, API, Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi is present.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 29 APRIL, 2025.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This is an application for suspension of sentence and for bail.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned Additional

¶16

Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

Digitally signed byPRIYA PRIYA RAJESH RAJESH SOPARKAR SOPARKAR Date: 2025.05.03 13:58:14 +0530

¶18

It is the contention of the Applicant that Applicant has been

¶19

convicted 3 years imprisonment under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection

¶20

1 of 3

¶21

Priya R. Soparkar

¶22

2 43 ia 3702-24 in apeal 1001-24-cr.doc

¶23

of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in addition to pay fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. Learned counsel further submitted that out of 3 years, Applicant has undergone sentence of 2 years, 6 months and 8 days. Hence, requested for suspension of sentence.

¶24

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that appropriate order be passed. Learned APP for the State has strongly objected to suspend the sentence as act committed by the Applicant is heinous offence.

¶25

I have heard all the learned counsel. Applicant has undergone sentence of 2 years 6 months and 8 days out of 3 years sentence and he is 77 years old. He was on bail during the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order :-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the Applicant is hereby suspended pending disposal of the appeal, subject to the applicant furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

Priya R. Soparkar

¶30

3 43 ia 3702-24 in apeal 1001-24-cr.doc

¶31

one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶32

(ii) The bail bonds to be furnished before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge.

¶33

(iii) The Interim Application is disposed of.