Bombay High Court
PRASHANT SAKHARAM ATREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant with conditions, as he has satisfied the one‑third sentence requirement under BNSS and the trial is not imminent.
Summary
The applicant, Prashant Sakharam Atre, was arrested in connection with offences under IPC sections 354-A and 354-B and POCSO Act sections 11 and 12. He filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., invoking the default clause of Section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after having served more than one‑third of the maximum prescribed sentence. The court examined the statutory provisions, noting that the applicant had already spent over half a year in custody, satisfying the one‑third rule under BNSS Section 351B, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, the court imposed strict bail conditions, including a personal bond, reporting requirements, and restrictions on travel and witness tampering. Consequently, bail was granted with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the default clause in Section 479(1) BNSS after the accused has served more than one‑third of the maximum sentence for offences under IPC 354-A, 354-B and POCSO Act.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged sexual offences warrants denial of bail despite the statutory entitlement after serving the requisite portion of the sentence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351B, 479(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354A, 354B
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 11, 12
Subjects
- bail
- Section 439 CrPC
- default clause
- BNSS
- sexual offences
- IPC 354A
- IPC 354B
- POCSO
- conditions of bail
Judgment
14.BA.1331.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1331 OF 2026
Prashant Sakharam Atre .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shubhankar Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Lokesh Zanzawar, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. Vithal B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent No.1.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in connection with
C.R. No.110 of 2023 registered with Dighi Police Station for offences
punishable under Section 354-A and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
3. Application is filed for seeking bail more specifically on the
ground of default clause, as enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section
479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘BNSS’) . It is an admitted position, and as also confirmed by the
learned APP, that the Applicant has undergone more than three and a
1 of 4
14.BA.1331.2026.doc
half years of incarceration after the date of his arrest, which is more
than the one-third punishment as prescribed, to entitle him to apply for
bail, in view of the maximum punishment prescribed under Section
351B of BNSS. In that view of the matter, the learned Advocate has
drawn my attention to the judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed in Bail
Application No.655 of 2025, page No. 111, by this Court. Though, by
virtue of that judgment, the bail was denied, however, the aforesaid
issue has been so recorded by the Court while recording the
submissions of the learned advocate on behalf of the Applicant in
paragraph No.5 thereof.
4. I have perused the provisions of Section 354A and Section
354B of the BNSS which prima facie prescribe the punishment from 3
years, which may extend up to 7 years. In view of the admitted fact
that the Applicant has already undergone more than one-third
sentence in incarceration, and the ignominy of the trial not being
concluded in the near future, the Applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail in view of he having spent more than one-third sentence
in incarceration and due to trial not been concluded in the near future.
Needless to state that, in view of the gravity of the offense as argued by
Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP, strict conditions shall, will have to
be imposed.
5. In view of the above Applicant is released on bail on
2 of 4
14.BA.1331.2026.doc
following terms:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison
in connection with Crime No.110 of 2023;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one
surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned Police Station twice a month on the first and third
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;
(iv) 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;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without
prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) 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
3 of 4
14.BA.1331.2026.doc
applicable; and
(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of
bail granted to the Applicant.
6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.08.11
20:05:27
+0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…