Dismissed¶33

Dipak Gena Londhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026IA/1393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence and bail during pendency of appeal refused; Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Interim Application No. 1393 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2025; conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012; life imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO; Section 42 POCSO Act (no separate IPC sentence); victim girl aged about 10 years; Applicant is step-father; medical corroboration by Dr. Raghava Arora (PW No.8); hymenal tears at 6, 9 and 12 O'clock positions; peri-hymenal redness; recent forceful vaginal penetration; heinous crime; breach of faith by step-father; application rejected (2026).

What did the court decide?

The version narrated by the victim is prima facie duly corroborated by the medical evidence. ¶25

Dipak Gena Londhe vs State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, should be released on bail and his sentence suspended during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2025.

¶14

Court's answer

The version narrated by the victim is prima facie duly corroborated by the medical evidence.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

According to the Court, the crime alleged against the Applicant is heinous, as he committed a breach of the faith reposed in him by his daughter, the victim being a girl of about 10 years of whom the Applicant is the step-father.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court is not inclined to grant the relief of releasing the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No. 1393 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.; decided 7 April 2026) — Application for suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of appeal rejected. The Applicant, step-father of the victim girl (PW No.3) aged about 10 years at the time of the offence, stands convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, no separate punishment under Section 376 IPC having been imposed in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The victim's account — that the Applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her and that she immediately confided the ordeal to her mother (PW No.1), who took her to the police station — was held prima facie corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Raghava Arora (PW No.8): hymen torn at 6, 9 and 12 O'clock positions, peri-hymenal redness and inflammation, and evidence of recent forceful vaginal penetration due to sexual intercourse. Holding the crime heinous because the Applicant breached the faith reposed in him by his daughter, the Court declined to release him on bail and rejected the application.

¶1

ssm 11-ia1393.2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2025

Dipak Gena Londhe

…..Applicant

Vs.

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Adv. Ms. Indrayanee Pandit for the Applicant. Smt. P.P. Shinde APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Nikhil Maneshinde for the Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 7^th APRIL, 2026.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

This is an Application for suspension of sentence and releasing the Applicant on bail during the pendency of Appeal.

¶15

Applicant is convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

¶16

(POCSO Act) and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO

¶17

Act, a separate punishment under Section 376 of the IPC is not imposed

¶18

1/3

¶19

ssm 11-ia1393.2025.doc

¶20

upon the Applicant.

¶21

Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Maneshinde, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, Complainant and Smt. Shinde learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused record.

¶22

The victim girl (PW No.3) was aged about 10 years on the date of commission of offence. The Applicant is the step-father of the victim. Perusal of evidence of victim discloses that, on the fateful day he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When the Applicant was committing the said act, the mother of victim who is the wife of Applicant (PW No.1) came at their house. The Applicant opened the door, upon which the victim (PW No.3) immediately confided the ordeal suffered by her to the mother (PW No.1). The mother took the victim to the nearby police station and narrated the said fact.

¶23

The victim girl was examined by Dr. Raghava Arora (PW No.8). In his testimony, Dr. Arora has deposed that, the hymen of victim was torn at 6 O’clock, 9 O’clock and 12 O’clock position. There was peri-hymenal redness and inflammation present. That, from history and clinical examination there was evidence of recent forceful vaginal penetration due to sexual intercourse without any physical injury on the body.

¶24