Bombay High Court

SANGITA SANDIP PAWARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail, allowing the application and providing interim relief.

Summary

The applicant, Sangita Sandip Pawara, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in connection with Crime No. 237 of 2022, which alleges offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including forced marriage of a minor and receipt of money. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and her husband abducted a minor girl, forced her to marry a co‑accused, and received Rs. 3.60 lakh, while the defence argues that the victim may have been a major and that no material evidence supports the money‑receipt allegation, citing the victim’s Aadhaar card. The court examined the FIR and the investigation report and found that, although prima facie allegations exist, there is no substantive evidence to substantiate the claims, and the victim’s statement alone is insufficient. Noting that the applicant’s liberty had already been protected by an earlier order dated 24‑07‑2026, the court granted interim relief in the form of anticipatory bail. The fee for appointed counsel was fixed at Rs. 10,000.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations of forced marriage of a minor and related offences
Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 366(A), 372, 373, 376(2)(N), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(L), 6
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
forced marriage
minor
IPC
POCSO Act
SC/ST Act
bail jurisprudence
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42305




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1731 OF 2026
                                   Sangita Sandip Pawara
                                            VERSUS
                            The State Of Maharashtra And Another

           Mr. A. S. Savale, Advocate for applicant
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for respondent-State
           Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2

                                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                              DATE         : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-


           1.          Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.

           237 of 2022 registered with Dhadgaon Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for

           the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 366(A), 372, 373,

           506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(L), 6 of the

           Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)

           (w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.


           2.          First Informant is the father of the victim girl. According to

           him, present applicant and her husband went to their home and asked

           the victim to accompany them. There is allegation that they took victim

           to the place at the distance of 500 KMs where forcibly her marriage was

           performed to co-accused Govind. There is allegation that husband of the




           22-ABA-1731-2026.odt                                                 1 of 3
present applicant has received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- for arranging said

marriage of victim i.e., said to be minor girl and was subjected to sexual

relations with co-accused Govind.


3.          Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that though there

is allegation against the applicant about along with her husband taking

away the girl, who is minor, there is evidence collected during the course

of investigation indicating that the victim could be major at the relevant

time. In this regard he drew attention of the Court to the Adhar Card

collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. It is his

further submission that though there is allegation with regard to

receiving money for forcing the victim to marry, there is no evidence to

indicate so. He, therefore, seeks liberty of the applicant to be protected.


4.          Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant opposed

grant of any protection to the applicant by referring to the allegations

against her in the First Information Report.


5.          Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are

allegations against the applicant of she being involved in the crime by

compelling minor girl to marry co-accused on receipt of Rs. 3,60,000/-.

Prima facie there is no evidence collected during the course of

investigation to substantiate the said fact. Statement of victim per say




22-ABA-1731-2026.odt                                                   2 of 3
would not be enough to support the said allegation. Applicant is lady

whose liberty was protected by an order dated 24.07.2026. Hence,

application stands allowed in terms of interim relief.


6.            Fees of appointed counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.




                                                         (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

B. S. Joshi




22-ABA-1731-2026.odt                                                     3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…