Bombay High Court

VAIBHAV BALASAHEB SATHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail, holding that the absence of independent evidence linking the applicant to the offences warranted bail despite the seriousness of the alleged crimes.

Summary

The applicant, Vaibhav Balasaheb Sathe, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with a crime registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 99 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on statements of a co‑accused and members of the raiding party, with no independent evidence linking the applicant to the offences. The victims did not support the prosecution’s case. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged offences and the lack of substantive evidence. Finding that there was no independent material to establish the applicant’s involvement, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions, including furnishing a bond, attending police as required, and not contacting or influencing witnesses.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate basis for granting anticipatory bail when the prosecution lacks independent evidence against the applicant?
Do statements of co‑accused and raiding party members suffice to justify denial of anticipatory bail?
Does the seriousness of the alleged offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 99
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
immoral traffic prevention
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
lack of evidence
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                     aba1284.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     938 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1284 OF 2026

Vaibhav Balasaheb Sathe                        .… Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       .....Respondent

Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. M. A. Aher, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 31st JULY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0207/2026 registered with Supa Police Station, District Ahilyanagar,

for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of Immoral

Traffic Prevention Act and Section 99 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that except for the

statement of co-accused and statement of members of raiding party,

there is absolutely no evidence to connect the Applicant with the

present crime.
                                     -2-
                                                            aba1284.26.odt

3.    Learned APP opposed the application by citing seriousness of

the crime so also statements recorded during the course of

investigation.



4.    A specific query is raised to learned APP to inform this Court

about the statements of victims.       From record, it is clear that the

victims have not supported the case of the prosecution against the

present Applicant. As such, there remains no independent evidence

in order to establish involvement      of the present Applicant in the

crime. Hence, application is allowed in following terms :-

                                 ORDER



        (i)      In the event of arrest of applicant Vaibhav
        Balasaheb Sathe, in connection with Crime No.
        0207/2026       registered   with   Supa   Police    Station,
        District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under
        Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
        and Section 99 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, he be
        released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/-
        (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like
        amount.


        (ii)     He shall attend the concerned police station as
        and when called.
                                   -3-
                                                          aba1284.26.odt



      (iii)   He shall not contact the witnesses directly or
      indirectly.


      (iv)    He shall not interfere with the evidence in any
      manner whatsoever.


      (v)     He    is   further    directed   to   cooperate    the
      investigating agency for further investigation.


      (vi)    Learned APP to communicate this order to the
      concerned Investigating Officer.



                                                    ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…