Allowed¶36

Alka Haribhau Dike v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Gadgenagar Ps Amravati Tq Amravati Dist Amravati

Bombay HC18 Apr 2026APPA/275/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; POCSO; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 202; hostel warden; duty to report offence to police; common statement under Section 313; age of victim; Special Judge (POCSO), Amravati; Special Case No.19/2013; Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2026; Nagpur Bench; P.R. bond Rs.25,000; arguable points; neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:6090.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence (six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-) till disposal of the appeal; release of the applicant on bail on a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. ¶36

Alka Haribhau Dike vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6090

¶2

¶3

30-Cr.APPEAL-175-2026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 275 OF 2026 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2026

¶7

Alka Haribhau Dike

¶8

-- VERSUS --

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

and Registrar's Orders.

¶12

Mr. Atharva S. Manohar, Advocate a/w. Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶13

Mr. A.G. Mate, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.

¶14

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

¶15

DATE : APRIL 18, 2026.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Admit.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. waives service for the

¶19

respondent/State.

¶20

Call for Record and Proceedings.

¶21

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 275 OF 2026:-

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This is an application for suspension of

¶24

sentence.

¶25

The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 21 of the Protection of

¶26

¶27

30-Cr.APPEAL-175-2026

¶28

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for Six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.

¶29

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the warden in the hostel where the crime was committed. He further submits that a common statement under Section 313 was recorded on the basis of which conviction is based, which is not permissible. Even the age of the victim was not proved by the prosecution, and therefore, under such circumstances, he submits that, considering the short-term sentence, the same be suspended.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that the offence is heinous. The applicant being the warden was in-charge of girls in the hostel, therefore, it was her responsibility to approach the police as soon as she came to know about the said incident. To that effect, evidence has been led, and therefore, after trial, the applicant has been rightly convicted, and therefore, he submits that, at the most, appeal itself can be heard on merits.

¶31

I have considered the rival submissions. As was observed above, the applicant was sentenced for six months with fine. It appears that, the applicant

¶32

¶33

30-Cr.APPEAL-175-2026

¶34

has paid the fine of Rs.2,000/-. It appears that the applicant is having good case on merits and arguable points have been made out, therefore, I am inclined to suspend the sentence. Hence, the following order:-

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i) The Criminal Application [APPA] No.275/2026, is hereby allowed;

¶37

(ii) The substantive sentence awarded in Special Case No.19/2013, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Amravati, is hereby suspended till disposal of the appeal;

¶38

(iii) The applicant – Alka Haribhau Dike, be released on bail on her furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶39

Piyush Mahajan

Alka Haribhau Dike v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Gadgenagar Ps Amravati Tq Amravati Dist Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alka Haribhau Dike v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Gadgenagar Ps Amravati Tq Amravati Dist Amravati

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

Similar cases

Ishu S/O Rakesh Swami vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Wadner, Dist, Wardha

Raju Ramchandra Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Jaulka

Prakash S/O Kisan Bhutekar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Mahagaon, Tq. Mahagaon Dist. Yavatmal

Parmeshwar S/O Kisan Chavhan vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Sonala Dist. Buldhana

Bhaskar S/O Mahadeo Haramkar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Khamgoan, Tah. Khamgaon Dist. Buldhana

Sachin S/O Sukhdev Meshram vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Kapil Nagar Ps Nagpur