Dismissed¶27

Siddharth Keshav Ranpise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026IA/4529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court criminal appellate order dismissing a convict-appellant's bail application in a pending appeal. Themes: bail to imprisoned appellant awaiting hearing of appeal; seven and half years undergone out of 20 years' imprisonment; less than 50% of sentence served; appeal at final-hearing stage; amendment to Section 6 POCSO Act effective after the incident; reliance argued on V. Senthil Balaji (2024 INSC 739) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978 AIR 429); bench: R.M. Joshi, J.; decided 12TH MARCH, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Applicant has not undergone even 50% of the sentence imposed against him. ¶26

Siddharth Keshav Ranpise vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

43-ia4529-25.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4529 OF 2025 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 2022

¶7

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.03.18 11:28:16 +0530

Siddharth K. Ranpise

V/s.

...Applicant

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶12

Mr.Anil G. Lalla with Mr.Yash P. and Adv.Roshil Alag for the Applicant.

¶13

Mr.R.M. Pethe for the State – Respondent.

¶14

Ms.Farhana Shah, appointed advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶15

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶16

DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2026.

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks bail on the

¶19

ground that the Appeal has not been heard after the bail application was rejected on 10^th April, 2023.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the

¶21

Applicant has already undergone seven and half years out of 20

¶22

years of imprisonment imposed against him by the impugned

¶23

1/2

¶24

43-ia4529-25.doc

¶25

judgment and order. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 INSC 739 and in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors., reported in 1978 AIR 429.

¶26

Principally, there cannot be any dispute made with regard to the propositions sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the Applicant in respect of grant of bail. Here in this case, however this Court by order dated 10^th April, 2023 after duly considering the fact that the amendment to Section 6 of POCSO Act has come into effect after the occurrence of the incident in question, still rejected the bail. Here in this case, the Applicant has not undergone even 50% of the sentence imposed

¶27

against him. The stage of the Appeal is for final hearing of appeal. The Appeal can be heard finally. Hence at this stage no case is made out for grant of bail. The Application is dismissed.

¶28

2/2

Siddharth Keshav Ranpise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Keshav Ranpise v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Devanand Eknath Sutar vs State of Maharashtra

Satyaveer Parshuram Singh @ Satyavir Kumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Ranjeet Hiraman Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri.Kisan Shankar Kator and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhagwandas Radhesham Gupta and Anr.

Vikash Sureshchandra Pathak vs The Union Territory of Dnh Daman and Diu