KRUSHNA BHUJANG KADAMversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37004




                                             1                         947 aba 1596.25

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1596 OF 2025

                         Krushna Bhujang Kadam,
                         Age : 21 Years, Occu. : Farmer,
                         R/o Hathgaon, Tq. Shevgaon,
                         Dist. Ahmednagar.                       ..   Applicant

                              Versus

                         The State of Maharashtra and another    ..   Respondents

                 Shri Vijay S. Wakale, Advocate for the Applicant.
                 Mrs. R. P. Gour, A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
                 Ms. Sarika Maru Tekale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 –
                 appointed.

                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                     DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2026.

                 ORDER :


                 .       Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr. No.
                 640/2025 registered with Shevgaon Police Station for the offences
                 punishable U/Sec. 74, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bhartiya
                 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protectino of
                 Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to
                 as ‘the POCSO Act’) and, therefore, this application for
                 anticipatory bail U/Sec. 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
                 Sanhita, 2023.


                 3.      The above-referred Crime is registered on the report lodged
                 by the Prosecutrix. According to the Prosecutrix, on 20/07/2025,
                           2                           947 aba 1596.25

when the Prosecutrix along with her brother were standing on
the kaccha road near their residence, the Applicant came on a
motorcycle and told the Prosecutrix that, he likes her very much
and asked her to sit on the motorcycle, so that they can flee. The
Applicant caught hold of her hand and pulled her Odhni. The
brother of Prosecutrix intervened, and the scuffle took place
between the Applicant and the brother of Prosecutrix. Due to the
chaos, the family members of the Prosecutrix came out, and the
Applicant fled.


4.    The learned advocate for the Applicant made available the
copies of the whatsapp chats to contend that, the Applicant and
Prosecutrix know each other and having soft corner for each
other. Since their friendship is not liked by the family members
of the Prosecutrix, this false FIR is lodged.


5.    Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 – victim opposes
grant of any protection to the applicant by referring to the
allegations made in the first information report. She also drew
attention of this Court to the order passed by Special Court
rejecting application for pre-arrest bail.      According to the her
applicant is habitual offender and sand mafia. She claims that
even if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail the same may
likely to adversely affect informant – victim.


5.    There is no dispute about the fact that after completion of
investigation charge sheet has been filed.         This Court while
                           3                          947 aba 1596.25

granting interim relief has considered whatsapp chats between
the applicant and victim – girl. It is rightly observed therein
that there was more than a friendship between the applicant and
the victim. In the light of this fact, this Court finds substance in
the contention of applicant that said friendship was revealed to
the family of the victim and there was reason to believe that first
information report has been lodged at the instance of the family
members.      In any case the investigation has already been
complete and as such this Court finds no justification in not
confirming interim relief.     The application therefore stands
allowed in terms of interim order dated 16.09.2025.


6.    The fees of appointed counsel to represent the respondent
No. 2 is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousands only) to be
paid by High Court Legal Aid Sub Committee, Aurangabad.



                                          [ R. M. JOSHI, J. ]

bsb/Aug. 26