Bombay High Court
SUSHANT SUKHDEV VIDHATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail as there was no justification to deny it.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench considered anticipatory bail applications filed by Prashant Sukhdev Vidhate and Sushant Sukhdev Vidhate against the State of Maharashtra. A charge‑sheet had been filed for offences under Sections 74, 118(1), 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicants argued that they had fully cooperated with the investigation and therefore the interim bail granted earlier should be confirmed. The State and a third respondent opposed the confirmation, citing the seriousness of the allegations. The Court examined the record, noted the applicants' cooperation and the completion of investigation, and found no justification to withhold the bail. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail, allowing the applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted in interim should be confirmed despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether the applicants' cooperation with the investigation warrants confirmation of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 118(1), 352, 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- cooperation with investigation
- interim relief
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
939 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1145 OF 2025
PRASHANT SUKHDEV VIDHATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Ms. Sakshi Dushing h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. R. B. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for respondent/State
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2025
SUSHANT SUKHDEV VIDHATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Ms. Avantika S. Kharade h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. R. B. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. During the course of hearing, this Court is informed that the charge-
sheet has been filed upon completion of the investigation in connection with
Crime No. 203 of 2025, registered with Ahilyanagar Camp Police Station,
District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 118(1),
115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 12 of the
939 ABA 1145.2025.odt 1 of 2
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicants submit that, having regard to the
nature of the allegations against the applicants and the fact that the applicants
have cooperated with the investigation, the interim relief deserves to be
confirmed.
3. Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 oppose the
confirmation of the interim relief by referring to the allegations against the
applicants as well as the nature of the crime.
4. Perusal of the record indicates that, while granting interim relief, this
Court had taken into consideration the allegations against the present
applicants. After considering the same, interim relief was granted. There is no
grievance on the part of the prosecution that the applicants have not
cooperated with the investigation. Having regard to the said fact, as well as
the fact that the investigation is over upon filing of the charge-sheet, this
Court finds no justification for not confirming the interim relief. Hence, the
applications stand allowed in terms of the interim orders.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
939 ABA 1145.2025.odt 2 of 2
Checking your session…