Bombay High Court

SHAHID SULTAN GADHAWALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court granted bail to the accused, holding that the facts did not justify denial of bail and that the presumption under Section 29 POCSO is not absolute.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for a 19‑year‑old accused charged with offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had taken advantage of a 14‑year‑10‑month‑old girl, while the defence argued that the relationship was consensual and non‑violent, citing statements of the girl and Instagram chats. The Court examined the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, noting that it is not absolute and must be weighed against the factual matrix, including the girl’s alleged consent and the absence of violence. Relying on precedents that consider the age of the parties, the nature of the conduct, and the need for reformative justice for young offenders, the Court held that continued incarceration would amount to punishment before conviction. Consequently, the Court granted bail with a detailed set of conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence and ensuring the accused’s cooperation with the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a POCSO case involving a minor.
Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act can be rebutted on the basis of alleged consensual conduct.
Whether the alleged conduct was violent or involved intimidation, thereby justifying denial of bail.
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with witnesses or evidence.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(n), 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 29, 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
minor consent
Section 29 presumption
sexual offences
reformative justice
age of consent
criminal procedure

Judgment

21. BA-1027-26.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2026

Shahid Sultan Gadhawal .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Ms. Savvy Kolhekar a/w Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocates for Applicant
 Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
 Ms. Aafreen S. Shaikh, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard Ms. Kolhekar, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.

Newton, learned APP for State and Ms. Shaikh, learned Advocate

(appointed) for Respondent No. 2.

2. This is an Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 / 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No. 675 of 2024

registered with Kondhawa Police Station, Pune for the offence

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 4 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").

3. Applicant is accused in a POCSO case. Applicant is 19 years old.

Date of registration of FIR is 11.6.2024. The date of the incident as

1 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

stated in the FIR by the first informant - prosecutrix is from

11.10.2023 to 25.2.2024. Age of the prosecutrix is 15 years (to be

precise 14 years 10 months). Applicant is in incarceration for 2 years

2 months.

4. Learned APP has vehemently argued that considering the age of

the prosecutrix, Applicant has taken undue advantage of her and not

only outraged her modesty on several occasions but also assaulted her

and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

5. Ms. Kolhekar, learned Advocate for Applicant would persuade

me to consider the case of the prosecution on the basis of the FIR itself

and contend that the Applicant and the prosecutrix were admittedly in

a consensual relationship. She would submit that even according to

the prosecution case and the statement of the mother of the

prosecutrix appended at page 21, it is a fact that the involvement of

the prosecutrix with the Applicant was completely known to her family

four months prior to the filing of the FIR in the month of June 2024.

She would submit that the mother of the prosecutrix has, in fact,

personally stated in her statement that when she came to know about

the relationship between the Applicant and the prosecutrix, she

warned the Applicant against maintaining any relationship with the

prosecutrix. She has also stated that she thereafter apprehended the

Applicant and the prosecutrix together on two separate occasions.

2 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

5.1. She would also refer to the statement recorded under Section

164 by the prosecutrix, as also the statement recorded during her

medico legal examination, copies of which are appended to the

Application which prima facie show that the prosecutrix, though under

the age of consent was fully aware of her actions in view of the fact

that both of them knew each other very well since October 2023 and

she on her own volition went out and met the Applicant outside her

school and went out with him without informing her family. The

prosecution case also refers to Instagram chats between the Applicant

and the prosecutrix which is heavily relied upon by the Applicant's

Advocate to persuade the Court to consider that the relationship

between them was not forceful and violent and that both of them were

in constant touch with each other.

5.2. She would also draw my attention to the Instagram ID which

was created by the prosecutrix herself on the mobile phone of her own

mother and how the same was kept hidden and under wraps from her

mother. It is also argued that on the pretext of doing studies, the

prosecutrix would borrow her mother's mobile phone which was a

smartphone and indulge in chatting with the Applicant on Instagram.

It is argued that the mother of the prosecutix has stated in her

statement that on several occasions she had apprehended the

prosecutrix while chatting with the Applicant and when the first

3 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

informant checked her phone, she realized that the prosecutrix had

deleted many of the chats. Hence, she would submit that in such

circumstances, where it is prima facie evident that the relationship

between the parties was consensual and there was no premeditation or

motive or any violence or abuse between the parties, in view of the

young age of the Applicant and the prosecutrix and their love

relationship, the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, Ms. Shaikh, learned appointed Advocate through the

legal aid for Respondent no. 2 - prosecutrix would vehemently submit

that the prosecutrix being a minor girl was a victim of circumstances

and that the plea of the Applicant regarding consensual relationship is

therefore untenable in law and should not be considered by the Court.

She would vehemently submit that the Applicant has taken undue

advantage of the young age of the prosecutrix by luring her repeatedly

outside her school premises with the sole intention of outraging her

modesty and engaging in a forceful relationship with her. She has

drawn my attention to the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix

and the statements recorded by the prosecution and argued that the

Applicant had given a false promise of marrying the prosecutrix,

gained her confidence and exploited her by carrying out repeated

assault on her. She would submit that the Applicant has committed the

offence with a premeditated notion and that if he is released on bail,

4 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

he is bound to pressurize the reoffend himself and prosecutrix and the

witnesses and therefore, the present Application be dismissed.

7. Learned APP has echoed the submissions advanced by Ms.

Shaikh on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 - prosecutrux which, for the

sake of brevity, are not reproduced herein.

8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Advocates at

the bar and perused the pleadings. Submissions made by them have

received due consideration of the Court.

9. I am conscious of the fact that the age of the prosecutrix was 14

years 10 months old at the time of the incident. According to the

prosecution case, the incident is spread over a substantial period of

time, namely between 11.10.2023 to 25.2.2024. However, it is seen

that the FIR is registered only on 11.6.2024. The aforesaid timeline,

therefore, prima facie appears to be such that the factual submissions

and facts will have to be considered.

10. On perusing the various statements recorded by the prosecution

including the statement of the prosecutrix herself and her Section 164

statement, it is prima facie seen that the prosecutrix was in love with

the Applicant and she had voluntarily accompanied him to several

places and on her own volition on several occassions and had a

consensual relationship with him fully knowing well about the

5 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

consequences of the same. It is also prima facie seen from her own

statements which are recorded that she was aware of the

consequences of having unprotected encounter also. In none of the

statements recorded it is the case of the prosecution and neither that

of the prosecutrix that there was an element of any violence, force or

abuse exercised by the Applicant.

11. What is intriguing is the fact that the prosecutrix never informed

her family members about her meetings and her repeated going out on

several occasions with the Applicant and most importantly, even

according to the prosecution case, four months before the filing of the

FIR, her family members had absolute knowledge about her meetings

and relationship with the Applicant.

12. As held by this Court in the case of Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs.

State of Maharashtra1 it is true that a wrong doer is to be punished,

guilty is to be convicted. However at the stage of bail, Court has to

consider prima facie under what circumstances the offences are

committed by the accused. The offence of rape can be distinguished

on the basis of the intention of the accused. In the aforesaid judgment

the learned Court summed up the ethos of relationship between young

boys and girls aptly in paragraph No.11 of the said judgment which

reads thus:-

1 BA No.1036 of 2015 – Decided on 03.08.2015

6 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

“11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex related issues and
lot of material is also available to them to know the sexual
relationship between a man and a woman. Because of their
impressionable age, girls and boys both may tend to get
provoked and there can be a curious and very compelling
demand of the body to get into such kind of relationship. Sexual
urge differs from person to person and there cannot be any
mathematical formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of
teenagers, as biologically whenever the child turns into puberty,
the child starts understanding his or her sexual needs. The
nature of response depends on the upbringing, peer pressure,
how civilized the environment is etc. Sex requires proper
physical and emotional preparation, as it results in many
physical and emotional consequences. This is all considered as a
sexual maturation. Therefore, some sects with view to regularize
sexual behaviour of the community have acknowledged this
biological factor and therefore, the early age marriages are
performed in some religions or communities. Taking into
consideration this social and biological factors, the law makers
have considered the age of 15 as a age of consent when the
marriage is performed. Taking into consideration this
background, the trial Judge has to pass an order of bail in such
cases.”

13. In view of my above prima facie observations borne out from

the record, complicity of the prosecutrix and considering the age of the

parties, I am of the opinion that in the above facts further

incarceration of the Applicant in prison would amount to giving him

punishment before conviction. Considering Applicant’s age of 19 years,

if he is enlarged on bail, Court is hopeful that Applicant’s family will

undoubtedly do their duty to make every effort and attempt to reform

and aid the Applicant in leading a reformed life while on bail rather

than keep him in prison and expose him to criminal outlook and life in

prison.

14. However, if a chance is given to the Applicant because of his

young age by enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility that he will

7 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

be remorseful and repent in retrospect. This is a chance required to be

taken by the Court because punishment has to be believed to be

inflicted for a reformative result rather than being punitive in nature

and that too on consideration of the facts of each case. Undoubtedly

the trial will determine the punishment for the offence. While

considering Bail Application in such facts, Court feels that reform and

rehabilitation of the young under trial accused needs to be considered

especially when age of the accused is young so that the accused gets

an opportunity / or is given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and

earn his livelihood honorably from the perspective of social

integration. This is a chance which the Court must take considering

the young age of accused. By considering this Court is not stamping

approval of any of the actions of Applicant regarding the alleged crime

in question. Court is also equally conscious of the offence. In the

present case, ages of the Applicant and the prosecutrix are very young.

If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison further, there is every

possibility that he might loose faith in the institution and society at

large and may tread the path of criminality or would waste his life.

Incarceration in prison statistically shows that it exposes many youth

to abuse. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted

disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why this Court feels

that any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative

8 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

approach in punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of

young offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk

should be constructively taken by the Court in the case of young

offenders – accused before committing such accused to further custody

and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the

Society. These observations are only in the view of the young age of

the Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an

alternative to incarceration so that the Applicant can be at his home

with his parents and the community which may have a positive impact

on his mind.

15. The applicant has made out a strong case in the present facts

and circumstances for consideration. It is also crucial to consider that

the acts between the parties were never violent or forced and that the

offender has no antecedents. Assistance for this is drawn from para

Nos. 9 to 14 of a decision of this Court in the case of Sajid Mehendi

Hasan Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2 which is

reproduced below for ease of reference:-

“ 9. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 4, 5,
and 6 of POCSO Act (special law) are concerned, it may be
stated that the provisions of this law are, though, stringent in
nature, however it would not deter the Court to grant or refuse
bail in order to secure the ends of justice more so when the trial
has not commenced despite a long hiatus and the case has been
pending trial before the trial Court for close to 5 years.
10. Assistance is drawn from the decision of the Supreme

2 Criminal Bail Application No.1101 of 2024 decided on 27 th March 2025

9 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

Court in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras3 wherein
the Court in paragraph No.2 has held thus:-
“2. Where a minor girl alleged to be taken away by
the accused person, had left her father's protection
knowing and having capacity to know the full
import of what she was doing and voluntarily joined
the accused, it could not be said that the accused
had taken her away from the keeping of her lawful
guardian within the meaning of section 361 of the
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). Something more
had to be done in a case of that kind, such as an
inducement held out by the accused person or an
active participation by him in the formation of the
intention either immediately prior to the minor
leaving her father protection or at some earlier
stage.”
11. Though the above referred case was decided well
before the POCSO Act was enacted, this Court is well conscious
of the presumption ingrained in Section 29 of the said Act and
that argument on prosecutrix’s consent is irrelevant but prima
facie if the statements of prosecutrix recorded are read, it is
clearly borne out that she has been consenting to the actions
which is gathered from the record of the case.
12. In the facts of the present case, attention is drawn to
the decision of this Court (Coram: Mridula Bhatkar, J.) in the
case of Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra 4 to
contend that consensus of the prosecutrix who is below the age
of 18 years is a mitigating circumstance for Trial Court to
consider. In furtherance to the above, Court has laid down
certain specific guidelines after taking into consideration
relevant cases as also the ethos and development of the age of
the young offenders in the Indian Society in general. Court in
paragraph Nos.8, 9,11 and 12 has laid down certain principles
which I find it apt to be reproduced herein below for
consideration of bail in such Applications. Paragraph Nos.8, 9,
11 and 12 read thus:-
“8. It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan
was decided in the year 1967 when the women were
not enjoying the freedom which today the women
have. Albeit the Hon'ble Supreme Court then has
taken a pragmatic view and has acquitted
Varadarajan. Now we come across such cases
everyday. If a girl is a minor between the age group
of 15 to 18 years and if it can be safely inferred that
her consent was obvious, then it is a mitigating
circumstance. Some trial Courts dealing with such
Bail Applications, especially after Nirbhaya case,
3 AIR 1965 942

4 Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015, decided on 03.08.2015.

10 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

started taking a strict approach and the accused are
denied the bail only on the ground that the
prosecutrix being minor below 18 years, her consent
is immaterial, therefore, in the case of rape on such
minor, no bail can be granted. This is a matter of
concern.
9. In view of the increasing offences against the
women especially of rape, the legislature and
judiciary both found it obligatory to deal these
offences with severe punishment and women can be
protected if the laws are made rigorous. Therefore,
report of Justice Verma Committee was accepted and
necessary and significant amendments were made in
these two sections. A wrong doer is to be punished,
guilty is to be convicted. However, at the stage of
bail, the Court has to consider prima facie under
what circumstances the offence is committed by the
accused. In the Criminal law, the Court cannot
ignore the intention or motive behind the act and
that is an important factor in the commission of
offence so also to decide the quantum of sentence at
the end of trial, so in the case of bail.
10. ...
11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex
related issues and lot of material is also available to
them to know the sexual relationship between a
man and a woman. Because of their impressionable
age, girls and boys both may tend to get provoked
and there can be a curious and very compelling
demand of the body to get into such kind of
relationship. Sexual urge differs from person to
person and there cannot be any mathematical
formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of
teenagers, as biologically whenever the child turns
into puberty, the child starts understanding his or
her sexual needs. The nature of response depends
on the upbringing, peer pressure, how civilized the
environment is etc. Sex requires proper physical and
emotional preparation, as it results in many physical
and emotional consequences. This is all considered
as a sexual maturation. Therefore, some sects with
view to regularize sexual behaviour of the
community have acknowledged this biological
factor and therefore, the early age marriages are
performed in some religions or communities. Taking
into consideration this social and biological factors,
the law makers have considered the age of 15 as a
age of consent when the marriage is performed.
Taking into consideration this background, the trial
Judge has to pass an order of bail in such cases.

11 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

12. The overall considerations while deciding such
applications can be summed up as -
When a boy and a minor girl are in love with each
other and chose to live together without consent of
their parents, then the following factors are to be
considered:
(i) What is the age of the prosecutrix, who is minor.
(ii) Whether the act is violent or not.
(iii) Whether there are antecedents or not.
(iv) Whether the offender is capable of repeating
the Act or not.
(v) Whether there is likelihood of threats or
intimidation, if at all the boy is released.
(vi)Whether any chance of tampering with the
material witnesses when their statements are
recorded.
(vii) It is also to be taken into account in such cases
that a boy in his early 20's deserves to get
employment and to plan, stabilize and secure his
future.”
13. Next the decision of this Court (Coram: Sandeep K.
Shinde, J.) in the case of Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav Vs. The
State of Maharashtra5 is also relevant in the facts of the present
case. Relevant paragraph No.4 is reproduced below for reference
and reads thus:-
“4. …..The conduct of the victim is indicative of
the fact that she had left the home of her parents by
her own will and that she had surrendered to the
physical desires of the applicant out of her love and
affection for him. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the applicant had promised to
marry her. Additionally, it is also not a case where
under the misconception of the fact, she had served
herself to the desire of the applicant for physical
relations. No doubt, that the applicant, under the
preview of POCSO Act, is a minor, however, the
facts of the present case indicate that she had
sufficient knowledge and capacity to know full
import of what she was doing and had only
thereafter voluntarily joined the complainant
(applicant).”
14. There is no doubt that presumption under Section 29
exists but it is not an absolute presumption. This Court is of the
opinion that presumption would come into play only when
5 Criminal Bail Application No.2632 of 2019 decided on 09.01.2020

12 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would prima
facie form the foundation for the presumption. Otherwise, all
that the prosecution would be required to do is to raise some
allegation against the accused person and claim that the case
projected by it is true. Court will have to be on guard to see that
application of presumption without adverting to the essential
facts shall not lead to injustice since we are at a prima facie
stage and trial has not even begun. The presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute. Attention in this
regard is invited to the decision of High Court of Kerala in the
case of Joy Vs. State of Kerela Represented through the Public
Prosecutor6 in a similar case where age of prosecutrix as below
18 years and a similar argument was made. The relevant
paragraph Nos.9 to 11 are reproduced below:-
“9. Mere delay in reporting the matter to the
authorities concerned, especially sexual assault on a
minor girl, is immaterial and it would not be fatal to
the prosecution case. However, in the instant case, it
is not the delay alone that is significant. The
significant fact is that the complaint was given to the
authorities concerned only two weeks after the
mother received the lawyer notice from the
petitioner claiming a huge amount as professional
fees. This raises suspicion on the prosecution case
against the petitioner. When the victim had disclosed
the matter to her mother in July, 2018, one would
have expected the mother to report the matter to the
authorities concerned much earlier than 22.09.2018.
The fact that she reported the matter only after
receiving a lawyer notice from the petitioner
assumes significance.
10. This court is not oblivious to Section 29 of the
Act which contains a legislative mandate that the
court shall presume commission of the offences by
the accused unless the contrary is proved. Section
29 of the Act states that where a person is
prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting
to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9
of the Act, the Special Court shall presume, that
such person has committed or abetted or attempted
to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless
the contrary is proved. The court shall take into
consideration the presumption under Section 29 of
the Act while dealing with an application for bail
filed by a person who is accused of the aforesaid
offences under the Act (See State of Bihar v.
Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : AIR 2017 SC
630).
11. However, the statutory
6 2019 SCC OnLine 783.

13 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

presumption under Section 29 of
the Act does not mean that the
prosecution version has to be
accepted as gospel truth in every
case. The presumption does not
mean that the court cannot take
into consideration the special
features of a particular case.
Patent absurdities or inherent
infirmities or improbabilities in the
prosecution version may lead to an
irresistible inference of falsehood
in the prosecution case. The
presumption would come into play
only when the prosecution is able
to bring on record facts that would
form the foundation for the
presumption. Otherwise, all that
the prosecution would be required
to do is to raise some allegations
against the accused and to claim
that the case projected by it is
true. The courts must be on guard
to see that the application of the
presumption, without adverting to
essential facts, shall not lead to
any injustice. The presumption
under Section 29 of the Act is not
absolute. The statutory
presumption would get activated
or triggered only if the prosecution
proves the essential basic facts. If
the accused is able to create
serious doubt on the veracity of
the prosecution case or the
accused brings on record materials
which would render the
prosecution version highly
improbable, the presumption
would get weakened. As held by
the Apex Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :
AIR 2011 SC 312, frivolity in
prosecution should always be
considered and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of
anticipatory bail. No inflexible
guidelines or straitjacket formula

14 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

can be provided for grant or
refusal of anticipatory bail. It
should necessarily depend on facts
and circumstances of each case in
consonance with the legislative
intention.”
16. Hence, in view of the above facts and citations, in the present

case, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the Applicant in prison

considering his young age is likely to worsen his likelihood of success

in every sphere of life and society and it will expose him to abuse.

While granting bail in such facts there is a very thin line rather a faint

line between punitive and reformative approach and therefore in the

facts of the present case delineated hereinabove, I am inclined to grant

bail to the Applicant on the following terms:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from

prison in connection with Crime No. 675 of 2024;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand

only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail

of Rs. 10,000/- for his release immediately and file

undertaking that he will provide one or two sureties in

the like amount of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of four

weeks after his release which shall be accepted by the

Trial Court, Applicant shall provide surety as directed;

15 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

(iv) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Kondhawa Police Station, once every month on the first

Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

p.m.;

(v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically

exempted and will not take any unnecessary

adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the

prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vii) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses

or tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(viii)Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of his current address and mobile contact number and /

or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from

time to time, as applicable;

(ix) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the prosecutrix

either physically or by any electronic devices / means

until the trial is completed and the verdict is delivered

by the Trial Court; and

(x) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation

16 of 17
21. BA-1027-26.odt

of bail granted to the Applicant.

17. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Shaikh,

learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the

cause of Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix). Her fees be paid by the High

Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a

server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the

decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The

State of Maharashtra & Anr.7 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1)

of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.

18. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in

the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the

submissions made and the material placed before this Court.

19. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.02
19:46:09
+0530

7 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024

17 of 17

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…