Allowed¶37

Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish v. U. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026IA/4640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; POCSO conviction; Section 376 IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act; Section 65B Evidence Act certificate; CCTV footage non-production; adverse inference against Investigating Agency; torn hymen; medical evidence; victim testimony reliability; absence of injuries; Dadra and Nagar Haveli; Madarsa; 15 years sentence; P.R. bond Rs.15,000; R. M. Joshi; Bombay High Court; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence (15 years with fine, imposed by Judgment and Order dated 17th February, 2023) suspended till decision of the Appeal; appellant enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount; condition not to contact the victim or other girls witnesses in any manner; any breach to result in forthwith cancellation of bail. ¶37

Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish vs U. T. of Dadra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant/Applicant has made out a prima facie case of fair chances of success in the Appeal so as to warrant suspension of his substantive sentence and enlargement on bail. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

Testimony of a victim, if it inspires confidence, is sufficient to convict the accused even without corroboration; however, merely because there is no enmity between the parties, the case of the accused cannot be discarded by ignoring evidence on record.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Adverse inference may be drawn that the CCTV footage of the Madarsa — whose existence the Investigating Officer admits and which he candidly admits going through — was withheld from the Court because it showed the innocence of the accused, since no justification or reason was provided for its non-production.

¶29

Key takeaways

Merely because of the factum of torn hymen without any injuries attributed to the incident, there can be no conviction of the accused.ratio¶33
On the material on record — including the non-production of the CCTV footage, the absence of injuries on the victim despite her claim that her hands were tied and she resisted, and her nondisclosure of the incident to a Medical Officer at another hospital the day after — the Appellant/Applicant has a reasonable chance of success in the Appeal; he has been behind bars about 4 1/2 years, has no criminal history, and is not likely to flee from justice.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R. M. Joshi, J.), 12th January, 2026 — Interim Application No. 4640 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2023 (Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish v. U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.): Allowed. Suspension of sentence and bail granted pending appeal against conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act (Judgment and Order dated 17th February, 2023 in POCSO Spl. Case No. 04 of 2022; maximum sentence of 15 years with fine). The Court found a prima facie reasonable chance of success in the Appeal because: (i) the Investigating Officer admitted the Madarsa was covered by CCTV and candidly admitted going through the footage, yet produced no justification for its non-production — adverse inference drawn that the footage, showing the innocence of the accused, was withheld from the Court; (ii) the victim claimed her hands were tied and that she resisted, yet the medical examination (incident 21st November, 2021; examination 23rd November, 2021) indicated no injuries on her person, and she did not disclose the incident to a Medical Officer at another hospital the next day; (iii) merely the factum of torn hymen without injuries attributed to the incident cannot sustain conviction. Appellant behind bars about 4 1/2 years, no criminal history, not likely to flee; Appeal not likely to be heard soon. Enlarged on bail on P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount; not to contact the victim or other girls witnesses; breach entails forthwith cancellation. All observations expressly prima facie and not binding at the final hearing of the Appeal.

¶1

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

¶2

Rekha Patil

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4640 OF 2024 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2023

¶7

Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish ...Applicant Versus U. T. Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Balkrishna Joshi with Virendra Pethe, for the Applicant/ Appelant.

¶9

Mr. Ashwin Thool, standing Counsel with Archishmati Chandramore, for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Respondent No.2 (Appointed Advocate)

¶11

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATED: 12^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶13

PC:-

¶14

This application is for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the appellant / accused on bail in connection with Judgment and Order dated 17^th February, 2023 , passed in POCSO Spl. Case No. 04 of 2022, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to suffer maximum sentence of 15 years with fine.

¶15

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶16

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.01.12 19:15:41 +0530

¶17

Page 1 of 6 12^th January, 2026

¶18

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence of the victim is not reliable and trustworthy and the same is not supported by the medical evidence. It is his submission that as per the case of the victim herself, she was never administered any substance by the accused so that she can be sexually assaulted. In this regard, attention of the Court is drawn to the examination-inchief of the victim wherein she claimed that she was thirsty and hence after seeking permission of the accused, she went to the kitchen and drank water. It is his submission that if it is a case of the victim that her hands were tied and she resisted to the alleged act done by the accused, there ought to have been some evidence indicating injuries on her person, which are absent. It is submitted that the Investigation Officer has accepted the fact that the Madarsa wherein the incident has taken place was covered by the CCTV. Attention of the Court is drawn to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, which shows that the IO went through the CCTV footage but failed to produce the same before the Court. It is his submission that the Appellant/Accused had placed on record said CCTV footage in a pen-drive, however, the Court refused to accept the said evidence for want of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is his submission that the Appellant/Accused is behind the bar since for a period of four years now and considering the possibility of his success in the Appeal, he deserves bail. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant further submits that there is no criminal history behind him.

Page 2 of 6

12^th January, 2026

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

Learned standing Counsel for Union of India and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 oppose the Application. It is their contention that the testimony of victim is sufficient to convict the Appellant/Accused and the same is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. In this regard reference is made to the evidence of PW-3 Medical Officer. It is argued that since the victim became dizzy after consuming the water, she could not possibly resisted accised in full force so also taking into consider her age as compared with the age of the accused, in any case her asisstence would fall short. It is, therefore, submitted that non-presence of any injury mark on her person is not a ground to grant bail to the Appellant/Applicant.

¶24

In order to seeks suspension of substantive sentence and enlargement on bail, the Appellant/Applicant has to make out a prima facie case of fair chances of success in the Appeal. Herein the case, the victim claims about she being sexually assaulted by the accused, however, it is her contention that after drinking water she became dizzy and accused started overpowering her. Since she probably became unconscious, she is not narrating the exact incident of sexual intercourse in her evidence. She, however, specifically states that the Appellant/Applicant had tied her hands and she resisted. Even if it is accepted that the victim could not have registered full fledged resistance to the accused, however, she claims that they had fight and her hands were tied. The victim was examined. The incident is occurred on 21^st November, 2021 and the victim is examined by the Medical Officer on 23^rd November,

Page 3 of 6

12^th January, 2026

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

In such circumstances, there could have been some injuries on her person. Apart from this, the victim admits that on the next of the incident she went to another hospital, however, she has not disclosed the occurrence of the incident to the Medical Officer therein.

¶29

No doubt, the testimony of a victim if inspires confidence, it sufficient to convict the accused person even without corroboration. However, at the same time, merely because there is no enmity between the parties, the case of accused cannot be discarded by ignoring evidence on record. Herein this case, most importantly the Investigating Officer admits about existence of CCTV in the Madarsa. The admissions of the panch witnesses so also the Investigating Officer clearly indicate that it was possible for the Investigating Agency to bring it on record through CCTV footage that at the instance of the accused, the victim went to the gate of the hall locked it and thereafter, the incident of question had occurred. It could have also be seen therefrom as to whether the accused was present in Madarsa at the time of occurrence of incident or had left the place as claimed by him. The Investigating Officer candidly admits on going through the CCTV footage in question. Now, question arises what has prevented the Investigating Agency to bring the said CCTV footage on record. There is no justification/reason provided for it’s non production. This Court finds substance in the contention of Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant that for non production of the CCTV footage, adverse inference may be drawn that since it was showing the

Page 4 of 6

12^th January, 2026

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

innocence of the accused, it was withheld from the Court. Similarly, merely because of factum of torn hymen without any injuries attributed to the incident, there can be no conviction of accused.

¶34

The above discussion clearly indicates that the Appellant/Applicant has a reasonable chance of success in the Appeal. He is behind the bar for a period of 4 ½ years . The Appeal is not likely to be heard in short period of time. The Appellant/Applicant has no criminal history and he is not likely to flee from justice. Hench, the following order.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(a) The Interim Application is allowed.

¶37

(b) The substantive sentence imposed against the Applicant/ Appellant by Judgment and Order dated 17^th February, 2023 passed in POCSO Spl. Case No. 4 of 2023 stands suspended till decision of the Appeal.

¶38

(c) The Applicant/Appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

¶39

(d) The Applicant/Appellant not to contact the victim or other girls witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

¶40

Page 5 of 6 12^th January, 2026

¶41

24-IA-4640-2024.DOC

¶42

(f) Any breach of aforestated condition shall result into forthwith cancellation of bail.

¶43

In view of the above, Interim Application stands disposed of.

¶44

It is clarified that the above observations are made on prima facie consideration of the material on record and the same shall not bind the parties during the final hearing of the Appeal.

¶45

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶46

Page 6 of 6

¶47

12^th January, 2026

Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish v. U. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Mohammad Tariq Idrish v. U. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

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

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.

Siddharth Keshav Ranpise vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.