XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24574
                                              1 of 4                     19.1-ACB.102.2025



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 102 OF 2025
                                       IN BA/2133/2022

                                                XYZ
                                              VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                 …
               Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate for Applicant.
               Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE    :       22nd JUNE, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for the Applicant

               and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Naik for the

               Respondent–State.


               2.        By the present application, the Applicant seeks cancellation

               of the bail granted to Respondent No.2–Accused by this Court vide

               order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Bail Application No.2133 of 2022,

               arising out of Crime No.386 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 registered with

               Degloor Police Station, Degloor, District Nanded, for the offences

               punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) and 506 of the Indian

               Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from

               Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).


               3.        Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that while
                                   2 of 4                 19.1-ACB.102.2025



releasing Respondent No.2 on bail by order dated 12.01.2023, this

Court had imposed a condition that Respondent No.2–Accused shall

not contact the victim or her relatives till the conclusion of the trial.


4.        He submits that after his release on bail, Respondent No.2

attempted to threaten the Informant and, therefore, on 08.08.2024, a

Non-Cognizable Complaint (N.C.) came to be registered. He further

submits that on 22.04.2025, another N.C. came to be registered on

similar allegations. It is further contended that a subsequent FIR also

came to be registered against Respondent No.2 on allegations that he

had uploaded obscene photographs and videos of the victim on

Instagram. According to the Applicant, Respondent No.2 has misused

the liberty granted by this Court and has violated the condition

restraining him from contacting the victim and her relatives. In view of

the two N.Cs. as well as the subsequent FIR, it is submitted that

sufficient grounds exist for cancellation of bail.


5.        Learned APP supported the submissions advanced on behalf

of the Applicant. He submits that despite the condition imposed by this

Court, Respondent No.2 threatened the complainant and her relatives,

resulting in registration of the two N.Cs. It is further submitted that

Respondent No.2 uploaded as many as 68 obscene photographs and

videos on Instagram, on account of which another FIR came to be

registered against him. On these grounds, he prayed for cancellation of
                                 3 of 4                 19.1-ACB.102.2025



bail.


6.        Per contra, Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Respondent

No.2, submits that the N.Cs. have been registered only with a view to

create grounds for cancellation of bail. He further submits that, insofar

as the subsequent crime is concerned, the investigation is complete, the

charge-sheet has been filed, and Respondent No.2 has been in custody

since 24.06.2025. According to him, the allegations are being relied

upon solely for seeking cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.


7.        I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed on

record, including the copies of the N.Cs. and the FIR registered against

Respondent No.2. As regards the N.Cs., though they have been

recorded, the learned Advocate for the Applicant was unable to point

out whether any further proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto

before the competent Magistrate. As regards the subsequent FIR, it

appears that this Court had already granted bail to Respondent No.2 in

respect of the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and

the provisions of the POCSO Act. The subsequent FIR appears to arise

out of the same relationship between the parties, though additional

allegations under the provisions of the Information Technology Act,

2000 have been made.


8.        It is pertinent to note that the offences invoked under the
                                             4 of 4              19.1-ACB.102.2025



          Information Technology Act, 2000 carry a maximum punishment of up

          to five years' imprisonment. Having regard to the material placed on

          record and the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that no

          supervening circumstances have been demonstrated so as to warrant

          cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No.2. Mere registration

          of the N.Cs. and the subsequent FIR, in the facts of the present case, is

          not sufficient to justify cancellation of bail.


          9.         In view of the above, I find that the Applicant has failed to

          make out a case for cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent

          No.2. Hence, the application stands dismissed.



                                               (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef