Allowed¶26

Iliyaz @ Ilu Nawaz Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2025IA/5190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; POCSO Section 4; 20 years rigorous imprisonment; victim age discrepancy (16 / 15 years 11 months / 17); consensual love affair admission; refusal of medical examination; reasonable chance of success; eight years in custody; P.R. Bond Rs.15,000/-; no-contact condition; prima facie observations; Bombay High Court; R.M. Joshi, J.; IA 5190/2024; Cr. Appeal (ST) 26049/2024.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence till decision of the appeal and enlargement of the appellant on bail on a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the condition that he does not contact the victim directly or indirectly; breach entails vacation of the order; interim application disposed of accordingly. ¶26

Iliyaz @ Ilu Nawaz Khan vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether, at the interim stage, there is a reasonable chance for the appellant to succeed in the appeal, warranting suspension of his substantive sentence and his enlargement on bail.

¶20

Court's answer

In view of evidence indicating three different ages of the victim, her admission of love relationship with the accused, and her refusal to undergo medical examination, the appellant has a reasonable chance of success in the appeal; he had been behind bars for eight years.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The substantive sentence imposed by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th February 2022 in POCSO Special Case No.693 of 2019 is suspended till the decision of the appeal.

¶27

Key takeaways

The appellant is to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.ratio¶28
Bail condition: the appellant shall not directly or indirectly contact the victim in any manner whatsoever till the decision of the appeal.ratio¶29
Any breach of the bail condition will result in the order being vacated and the appellant being required to undergo the sentence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R.M. Joshi, J. — Interim Application No.5190 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal (ST) No.26049 of 2024 (decided 03 December 2025): Application for suspension of sentence and bail by an appellant convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine by judgment dated 28 February 2022 in POCSO Special Case No.693 of 2019. Court noted three different indications of the victim's age (16 years as claimed by victim, 15 years 11 months per documentary evidence, 17 years per history given to the Medical Officer), the victim's admitted love affair with the accused, and her refusal to undergo medical examination; held the appellant had a reasonable chance of success in appeal, having already spent eight years in custody. Sentence suspended till decision of appeal; appellant enlarged on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety, on condition of no direct or indirect contact with the victim, breach entailing vacation of the order. Court clarified its observations were prima facie and would not bind the parties at the final hearing of the appeal.

¶1

34-ia-5190-2024.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5190 OF 2024 in

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.26049 OF 2024

¶5

Iliyaz @ Ilu Nawaz Khan …. Appellant V/s. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …. Respondents

¶6

Ms. Sayed Shabana M. Ali, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. C. D. Mali, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Tohid Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2(Appointed through Legal Aid).

¶7

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATE : 03^rd DECEMBER 2025

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

This application is for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the applicant/appellant on bail in connection with the impugned judgment and order dated 28^th February 2022 passed in POCSO Special Case No.693 of 2019, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer

¶11

20 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine.

¶12

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

¶13

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2025.12.04 10:30:20 +0530

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is behind bar for last eight years. It is her further submission that there is doubt with regard to the exact age of the victim as the

¶15

page 1 of 3

¶16

34-ia-5190-2024.doc

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam

¶18

victim claims her age to be 16 years, whereas the documentary evidence indicates her age as 15 years and 11 months and the history given to the Medical Officer shows that she was 17 year old. She further drew the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the victim, wherein she candidly admitted the love affair with the accused. Reference is also made to the history given to the Medical Officer about the consensual relationship between the accused and victim. It is argued that there is no support to her testimony by medical evidence as she refused to undergo the medical examination. It is thus her submission that the appellant has reasonable chance of success in the appeal.

¶19

Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by contending that the victim claims in her substantive evidence before the Court that she was forced to the said physical relationship. It was also argued that the documentary evidence indicates that the victim was minor and hence, her consent for the sexual relation is immaterial.

¶20

At this stage, the Court has to see whether there would be any reasonable chance for the appellant to succeed in the appeal. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that there is evidence indicating three different age of the victim. Apart from this, the victim admits that she had love relationship with the

¶21

page 2 of 3

¶22

34-ia-5190-2024.doc

¶23

Shubhada S Kadam

¶24

accused but has refused to undergo medical examination. Having regard to these facts, it could be said that the appellant has reasonable chance of success in appeal. He is behind the bar for eight years. Hence, the following order ;

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The application is allowed.

¶27

The substantive sentence imposed against the appellant by impugned judgment and order dated 28^th February 2022 passed in POCSO Special Case No.693 of 2019, stands suspended till the decision of appeal.

¶28

The appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶29

The appellant not to directly or indirectly contact the victim in any manner whatsoever till the decision of the appeal.

¶30

Any breach of condition, will result in this order being vacated and appellant being required to undergo the sentence.

¶31

The interim application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶32

It is clarified that above observations are made on prima facie

¶33

consideration of the material on record and the same shall not bind the parties during the final hearing of the appeal.

¶34

page 3 of 3

Iliyaz @ Ilu Nawaz Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iliyaz @ Ilu Nawaz Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind @ Arvya Pandurang Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvind @ Arvya Pandurang Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray Dada Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shriram General Insurace Co. Ltd. vs Dashrath Shantaram Ganve and Ors.

Tajuddin Hasidulla Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Sunil Kumar Ramsuchit Bharti vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.