Dismissed¶24

Yogesh Yuvraj Savale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026APPLN/2115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail pending appeal; suspension of sentence; conviction under S.376(1) IPC and S.4(5)(i) r/w S.6 POCSO Act; consent of minor has no value in law; alleged love affair/consensual inference rejected; visits to various places insufficient; Rishipal v. State of Uttaranchal (Crl.A. 180/2014, dt. 27.02.2025) distinguished as charge not under Special Act; medical evidence - hymen torn 15 days to one month; Special Judge (POCSO), Dhule conviction dated 28.05.2025; application rejected 06.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

The argument that visits by the applicant and the victim to various places show consensual acts will not be enough to take out the rigors of the provisions of the Special Act (POCSO). ¶23

Yogesh Yuvraj Savale vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted and the ten-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence suspended during the pendency of the applicant's appeal against his conviction under Sections 376(1) IPC and Section 4(5)(i) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶12

Court's answer

The argument that visits by the applicant and the victim to various places show consensual acts will not be enough to take out the rigors of the provisions of the Special Act (POCSO).

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The victim was just 15 years old and the accused was 28 at the time of incident; the consent of the minor has no value in the eyes of law.

¶23

Key takeaways

The testimony of the doctor clearly shows that the hymen was torn, though it was 15 days to one month old (noted by the court as background while weighing the contention).obiter¶20
The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 180/2014 relied upon by the applicant's counsel is distinguishable because in that case the charge was not under the Special Act (POCSO).ratio¶23
In the aforesaid background, the applicant cannot be released on bail by suspending his sentence; accordingly, the application is rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.) rejects Criminal Application No. 2115 of 2025 (in APEAL/434/2025) filed by Yogesh Yuvraj Savale seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending appeal against conviction dated 28.05.2025 by the Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, under Sections 376(1) IPC and Section 4(5)(i) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act (rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default sentence). The defence argued a love affair with consensual acts and relied on Rishipal S/o. Sri Mitru v. State of Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 180/2014, dated 27.02.2025). The court held that visits to various places cannot take out the rigors of the Special Act; the victim was 15 and the accused 28 at the time of incident, and the consent of the minor has no value in the eyes of law; the doctor's testimony showed a torn hymen 15 days to one month old; and the cited case was distinguishable because the charge there was not under the Special Act. Application rejected.

¶1

905.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:136

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2115 OF 2025 IN APEAL/434/2025

¶5

YOGESH YUVRAJ SAVALE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shahrukh Shah APP for Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shrinivas Kulkarni

¶8

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. Dated : 06.01.2026

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

This is an application for grant of bail and suspension of

¶11

sentence.

¶12

The applicant who is original accused is convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (5) (i) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. He was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/even default sentence has been imposed upon him. Conviction awarded by Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, dated 28.05.2025, is assailed in an appeal and an application for bail of suspension of sentence is preferred.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Shah, submits that

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

( 2 ) 905

¶16

if the testimony of the victim is perused, it would clearly reveal that it was a case of love affair. He further submits that even victim has admitted in her cross-examination that there was a love affair. He further submits that since the appellant and victim had been to various places the inference can be drawn that the act was consensual.

¶17

According to him, in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court extended the benefit of bail to the accused. He has relied upon the judgment in Rishipal S/o. Sri Mitru Versus The State of Uttaranchal , in Criminal Appeal No. 180/2014, dated 27.02.2025.

¶18

Per contra, learned APP Ms. Ashlesha Deshmukh, contends that the judgment passed by the trial Court is just and proper and while awarding the sentence the testimony of victim as well as the medical evidence was discussed at length.

¶19

Learned counsel Mr. Shriniwas Kulkarni, appearing for the victim supported the stand taken by the prosecution. He submits that admittedly victim was minor on the date of incident, and therefore, her consent could not make any difference.

¶20

With the help of the parties, I have gone through the record. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contention advanced by the respective parties. At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that the conviction is not only under Section 376 (1) of the IPC, but also under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is necessary to mention here that the testimony of doctor clearly shows that hymen was torn though it was 15 days to one month old.

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

( 3 ) 905

¶23

Learned counsel for applicant though argues that it can be inferred that the act was consensual since the parties visited various places will not be enough to take out the rigors of the provisions of the Special Act. It is further necessary to mention here that the victim was just 15 years old and accused was 28 years, at the time of incident. The fact remains that the consent of the minor has no value in the eyes of law. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 180/2014 is concerned, suffice it to say that in that case, charge was not under the Special Act.

¶24

In the aforesaid background, I am of the opinion that the applicant cannot be released on bail by suspending his sentence. Accordingly, application is rejected.

¶25

SPC

¶26

3 of 3

Yogesh Yuvraj Savale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Yuvraj Savale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Collector , Nagpur, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur vs Arun S/O Shiv Godghate and Others

Shital Digamber Taak vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Sakharkheda , Dist. Buldhana

Arbaz Ahemad Farooque Ahemad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pradip Vitthal Gade and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Bhimrao Aswar and Others vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Bhaskar Havane and Other vs the State of Maharashtra and Another