Bombay High Court
XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The anticipatory bail order is upheld and the application challenging it is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, a minor who was sexually assaulted by a teacher between 2012 and 2019, filed an application challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the accused (Respondent No.2) by a Special Judge under the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged in November 2025, reflecting a 13‑year delay from the first alleged assault and a six‑year delay from the last assault. The Special Judge imposed stringent conditions on the bail, including regular police station attendance. The applicant argued that the seriousness of the offence and the delay warranted quashing the bail order, while the State contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The High Court held that despite the delay, the bail order was not perverse, the conditions were adequate, and therefore dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a prolonged delay in lodging an FIR on the validity of an anticipatory bail order under the POCSO Act?
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused with stringent conditions should be set aside in view of the seriousness of the offences (IPC §§354, 376(2) and POCSO §§4,6,8,12).
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 376(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- sexual assault
- minor
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
913.APPLN.121.26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2026
XYZ … Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
______________________
Ms.Rekha Musale for the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Harshad Mandke a/w Mr. Vaibhav Deshmukh and Mr. Vijay
Shinde for Respondent No.2.
______________________
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 6 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard Ms. Musale, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
State and Mr.Mandke, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. By this application, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of the order dated 19 December 2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Khed-Rajgurunagar,
District Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.681 of 2025 by which
pre-arrest bail has been granted to Respondent No.2, in connection
with Crime No.334 of 2025 registered with Manchar Police Station,
Page 1
PPN
913.APPLN.121.26.DOC
Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(2) of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
3. Ms. Rekha Musale, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant submitted that subject offence is very serious where the
Respondent No.2-Accused who is teacher of the Applicant sexually
assaulted the Applicant when she was in 9 th Standard i.e. when she
was minor of 16 years. She submitted that the said sexual assault
for the first time took place in December 2012 and, thereafter,
continued for several years and last such assault was in the year
2019. She submitted that the impugned order dated 19 December
2025 granting anticipatory bail is required to quashed and set
aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Jadhav, learned APP submitted that
the charge-sheet is already filed and, therefore, custodial
interrogation is not necessary.
5. Mr. Mandke, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2
submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate and
unexplained delay of 13 years. It is submitted that the impugned
order is passed on 19 December 2025 and there is nothing on
Page 2
PPN
913.APPLN.121.26.DOC
record to show that the Applicant has misused the liberty granted.
It is submitted that Applicant is following all the conditions of bail
including attending the concerned police station on first day of
each month.
6. Perusal of the record shows that even as per the F.I.R., the
sexual assault on the Applicant is from the year 2012 to 2019. The
F.I.R. has been lodged on 29 November 2025. Thus from the first
sexual assault, there is delay of 13 years and even after the last
sexual assault which took place in 2019, there is delay of 6 years in
lodging the F.I.R.
7. The learned Special Judge inter alia in the impugned order,
has stated that there is unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The
victim has not told about the alleged incident even to her family
members at any point. The recovery of mobile handset is possible
without custody of the Respondent No.2.
8. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge has
granted anticipatory by imposing stringent conditions. One of the
condition is that Respondent No.2 shall attend the Manchar police
station on every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till
conclusion of investigation and in the event of filing charge-sheet,
Page 3
PPN
913.APPLN.121.26.DOC
Respondent No.2 shall attend the Manchar Police Station on first
day of each month between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till conclusion
of trial.
9. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the
impugned order is a perverse order. Admittedly, the F.I.R. has been
lodged after a period of 13 years. The stringent conditions are
imposed on the Respondent No.2. Accordingly, no case is made for
interference in the impugned order. The Application is dismissed.
10. Needless to observe that the observations in this order as
also the impugned order of the Special Judge are of prima facie
nature and the trial will be decided uninfluenced by observations
in these orders.
[ MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 4
PPN
Checking your session…