Bombay High Court
VAIBHAV VISHNU KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- MEHROZ K PATHAN
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to stringent conditions, finding no prima facie evidence of forcible sexual intercourse and noting the consent in the marriage.
Summary
Vaibhav Vishnu Kale applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged assault, sexual offences under the POCSO Act, and child marriage offences. He claimed the marriage to the minor victim was consensual, performed with parental approval, and that no forcible sexual act occurred. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and potential for the accused to influence the victim and witnesses. The Court examined the investigation report, photographs of the marriage, and noted that other co‑accused had already been granted bail. Finding no prima facie evidence of forcible intercourse and considering the consent aspect, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in offences under IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
- Whether the alleged marriage to a minor was with valid consent, negating the element of forcible sexual intercourse under POCSO.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing the victim and witnesses.
- Whether imposing conditions can sufficiently safeguard the investigation while granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(n)
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — s. 10, 11, 9
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- POCSO
- child marriage
- sexual assault
- IPC
- bail conditions
- consent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:7311
1
1957.25ABA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1957 OF 2025
VAIBHAV VISHNU KALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.P.A.Bharat
APP for Respondent-State : Mr.K.K.Naik
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.V.S.Wakale
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 17.02.2026
P.C. :
1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the
learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned
counsel for the respondent no.2.
2] The applicant has approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. I-
0590/2025, dated 05.07.2025, registered with Shevgaon
Police Station, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, for the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 376 (2) (1), 376 (2)
(n) of the IPC and under Section 3, 4 of Protection of
2
1957.25ABA
Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9, 10 and
11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant has married with the victim with the
consent of the entire family members. The marriage was
performed as per Hindu Rites and Ritual with the consent of
the parents of the victim girl. The family of the victim as
well as the family of the applicant are related. The applicant
is falsely roped-in in the present crime. There is delay in
lodging the FIR and the same is concocted one. There was
no forcible sexual intercourse with the victim at the behest
of the present applicant. Nothing is to be recovered at the
instance of the present applicant. The applicant is not
having antecedents and is ready to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the present
applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
4] As against this, the learned APP as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently oppose
the present application on the ground that the applicant is
3
1957.25ABA
involved in the serious offence. The stringent provisions of
POCSO Act are also invoked against the present applicant.
The date of birth of the victim is 07.09.2010 and the
applicant is allegedly got married with the victim girl on
26.03.2024 at Varkhed, Taluka Shevgaon, District
Ahmednagar. There are allegations of harassment by the
applicant and relatives of the applicant on the ground that
her mother had not accepted the marriage. She was
subjected to sexual relations against her will by the
applicant. On 03.06.2025, she was assaulted by means of
kick blows and fist blows and driven out of the house by the
applicant. On 04.06.2025, she went to Snehalaya
Institution, Ahmednagar and was later admitted by MIDC
Police to Children Observation Home, Ahmednagar. Hence,
taking into consideration gravity of the offence, the
applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
5] I have gone through the investigation papers,
made available by the learned APP. Perusal of the
investigation papers as well as the photographs of the
4
1957.25ABA
marriage show that the present applicant got married with
the victim girl with the consent of the mother of the victim.
The relevant provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are invoked against
the present applicant. Perusal of the FIR shows that the
applicant got married with the victim girl out of her own
will without any coercion. Thereafter, after few months of
marriage, harassment had started at the behest of the
present applicant and father in law Vishnu Kale, mother in
law Bhimbai and brother in law Avinash Kale of the victim
girl. The brother as well as parents of the present applicant
are already protected by the learned Special Judge [POCSO
Act] & Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide order
dated 25.08.2025 in Cri.M.A.[Bail] No.1073/2025. Taking
into consideration the nature of allegations, it appears that,
the marriage was performed with the consent of the victim
and her mother. Though the provisions of POCSO Act are
attracted against the present applicant in the present case,
however, absence of any forcible act on the part of the
applicant, is worth consideration. Other accused persons,
5
1957.25ABA
who are equally alleged of the stringent provisions of
POCSO Act as well as Child Prohibition Act are already
released on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court,
vide order dated 25.08.2025. The custodial interrogation of
the applicant may not be necessary in the present case. The
apprehensions of the learned APP as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 that the applicant may
threaten the prosecutrix / victim and thereby cause
prejudice to the prosecutrix or her mother and other family
members, can be taken care of by imposing certain
conditions upon the applicant while releasing on
anticipatory bail. Hence the following order :
ORDER
I] In the event of arrest of the applicant, he be
released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/-
[Rs. Fifty Thousand], with two solvent sureties in the
like amount, in connection with Crime No. I-
0590/2025, dated 05.07.2025, registered with
Shevgaon Police Station, Tq. Shevgaon, District
Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 376 (2) (1), 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and
under Section 3, 4 of Protection of Children from
6
1957.25ABA
Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the
following conditions :
A] The applicant is directed to attend the
concerned police station and report to the
Investigating Officer on 21.02.2026, 23.02.2026,
28.02.2026, 02.03.2026, 07.03.2026 and 09.03.2026
between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as
and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing
of the charge sheet.
B] The applicant shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
C] The applicant shall not enter village Varkhed,
Taluka Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar where the victim
along with her mother are residing.
D] The applicant shall not pressurize the
prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence, in any manner.
E] The applicant shall not enter Shevgaon, Taluka
Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, except for attending
the Police Station on given dates.
6] Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid
7
1957.25ABA
conditions shall entitle the prosecution or complainant to
seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
7] The observations made herein above are prima
facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court while
deciding the case on its own merits.
8] The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of
accordingly.
[MEHROZ K. PATHAN]
JUDGE
DDC
Checking your session…