Bombay High Court
KUNAL LAXMAN PETHEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted bail to the accused on condition of a Rs.30,000 bond and compliance with stipulated conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Kunal Laxman Pethekar, was charged under Sections 64, 75, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman over the age of 16 on two occasions in September and October 2024. The prosecution argued that the assaults were committed by threatening the victim and were supported by a medical report, while the defence claimed a consensual love affair, highlighted the delay in filing the complaint, and noted the applicant’s clean record and 17 months already spent in custody. The court examined the delay, the victim’s age, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial. Considering these factors, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties, subject to conditions of attending the police station, not tampering with evidence, and not influencing the victim or witnesses. The order emphasized that the trial court would decide the case on its merits independent of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case of alleged sexual assault of a person over 16 years under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the complaint and the accused’s lack of antecedents justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the risk of the accused influencing the victim or witnesses warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 64, 75
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- POCSO
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- delay in complaint
- age of victim
- conditions of bail
Judgment
35-BA-1004-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1004 OF 2026
Kunal Laxman Pethekar ….Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and anr. ….Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Abhinav Dubey along with Mr. Mridul Das, Ms. Rajlaxmi Dubey and
Ms. Jyoti Pujari, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Komal Sinha, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 678 of 2024 registered with Panvel City Police Station, District
Raigad, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 75, 351(2) of the
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 8 and 12 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. It is prosecution's case that on 21st September 2024 and 5th
October 2024, the applicant sexually assaulted the first informant by
threatening her.
SHUBHADA 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there
SHANKAR
KADAM was a love affair between the applicant and the first informant, who was
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.04.27
15:07:44 +0530
Page 1 of 3
35-BA-1004-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
more than 16 years old. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. The
applicant is behind bars for more than 17 months. It may take time to
conclude the trial, hence, requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP, along with learned counsel for
respondent No.2, that there was no love affair between the applicant and
the victim. The applicant, by threatening the victim, sexually assaulted
her. The medical report supports the prosecution's case. If the applicant is
released on bail, he may threaten the victim and prosecution witnesses.
Hence, requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both counsel, perused charge sheet and
documents produced on record. At the time of the incident, the victim was
more than 16 years old. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. The
applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bars for more than 17 months.
It may take time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 678 of 2024
registered with Panvel City Police Station, District Raigad, on
executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
Page 2 of 3
35-BA-1004-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, the victim or the
prosecution witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…