Allowed¶35

Chandram Udho Yadav v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Nov 2025IA/5252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; POCSO Act 2012 S.6; S.376-AB IPC; child victim aged about 5 years; tutoring of minor witness; medical evidence not supporting sexual assault; no criminal history; P.R. Bond Rs.15,000 with one surety; undertaking not to enter Silvasa jurisdiction; Dadara & Nagar Haveli; Special POCSO Case No.39 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2024; Interim Application No.5252 of 2024; High Court of Bombay; R.M. Joshi, J.; Chandram Udho Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and release of the Appellant-Chandram Udho Yadav on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount; Appellant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Silvasa till decision of the Appeal; bail before the Trial Court. ¶35

Chandram Udho Yadav vs Union Territory of Dadra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant, convicted and sentenced to 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Special POCSO Case No.39 of 2023, deserves suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2024.

¶14

Court's answer

Prima facie, the possibility of tutoring of the victim cannot be ruled out; her testimony shows that at the spot of the incident she was alongwith the daughter of the Accused and it was the Accused who brought them together to the house; in this backdrop the medical evidence does not support the sexual assault; the Appellant has no criminal history and will not flee from justice — therefore this is a fit case for suspension of sentence and for bail.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

As a condition of the relief, the Appellant voluntarily undertakes (on instructions) not to enter the jurisdiction of Silvasa till the decision of the Appeal; the undertaking is accepted, and any breach of the said condition/statement will forthwith result in vacation of the order and cancellation of the bail.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.M. Joshi, J.), by order dated 13-11-2025 in Interim Application No.5252 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2024 (Chandram Udho Yadav v. Union Territory of Dadara & Nagar Haveli & Ors.), allowed suspension of sentence and granted bail to the Appellant, who stood sentenced by judgment and order dated 09-10-2024 in Special POCSO Case No.39 of 2023 to 20 years' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine for offences under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Prima facie perusal indicated that the possibility of tutoring of the minor victim could not be ruled out; her testimony showed she was with the Accused's daughter at the spot and the Accused brought them to his house; the medical evidence did not support the sexual assault; and the Appellant had no criminal history and would not flee justice. Release ordered on a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, conditional on the Appellant not entering the jurisdiction of Silvasa till decision of the Appeal; breach entails vacation of the order and cancellation of bail. Order corrected per speaking-to minutes dated 20-11-2025.

¶1

30-IA-5252-24 IN APEAL-1330-24 -Corrected.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5252 OF 2024 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1330 OF 2024

¶5

Chandram Udho Yadav …. Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Union Territory of Dadara & Nagar Haveli …. Respondents & Ors.

¶8

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.11.20 14:51:13 +0530

¶9

Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Mr.Vishal Shukla, for the Applicant. Mr.Ashwin Thool a/w Mr.Ayush Singh and Mr.Archishmati Chandramore, for Respondent No.1-Union Territory. Ms.Aishwarya Sharma, for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶11

DATE : 13^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶12

P.C:-

¶13

. This Application is for suspension of sentence and

¶14

enlargement of the Appellant on bail who is sentenced to suffer 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine by judgment and order dated 9^th October 2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.39 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 376-

¶15

AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and

¶16

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

¶17

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 20^th November 2025.

¶18

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶19

30-IA-5252-24 IN APEAL-1330-24 -Corrected.doc

¶20

Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short).

¶21

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, the prima facie consideration of evidence on record indicates that, this is case of false implication and as such, at this stage itself the Appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. He drew attention of the Court to the testimony of victim who was aged of 5 years old then who gives account of the incident in the cross-examination. It is in this submission that as per the said statement of the victim, the daughter of Accused was there alongwith her and the Accused came to the spot and took both to their house. In response to the question asked to the victim she candid the admits that her mother had told to inform that accused has touched her private part. It is his submission that read with the medical evidence clearly shows that this is a case of clear acquittal.

¶22

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 as well as APP opposed the Application by setting the grievous nature of the crime as well as age of the victim. He drew attention of the medical papers indicates that, the Medical Officer stated about

¶23

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 20^th November 2025. N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶24

30-IA-5252-24 IN APEAL-1330-24 -Corrected.doc

¶25

their being since and sexually assaulted and possibility cannot be ruled out.

¶26

At this stage, this Court is required to see there would be a reasonable case which could be made out during the course of the hearing for acquittal. Prima facie perusal of the case of the victim indicating that the possibility of the tutoring can not be ruled out. Similarly her testimony further shows that at the spot of the incident she was alongwith the daughter of the Accused. It was the Accused who brought them together in the house. In this backdrop the medical evidence does not supports of the sexual assault. Having regard to this fact, the Appellant has no criminal history he will not flee from justice. Having regard to these facts this is a fit case for suspension of sentence and for bail.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Appellant makes voluntarily statement on instructions the Appellant will not enter in the jurisdiction of Silvasa till the decision of the Appeal. The statement is accepted as an undertaking. Any breach of the said condition/statement will forthwith result into

¶28

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 20^th November 2025.

¶29

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶30

30-IA-5252-24 IN APEAL-1330-24 -Corrected.doc

¶31

the vacation of the order and the Appellant will result cancellation of the bail.

¶32