Bombay High Court
SAGAR DATTATRAY SABALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the DNA evidence confirmed the accused's involvement and no sufficient ground existed to grant bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sagar Dattatray Sabale, applied for regular bail in a criminal case (CR No. 193/2025) alleging that he had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with a 12-year‑8‑month‑old girl, who later became pregnant and gave birth. The prosecution presented a complaint, medical examination confirming pregnancy, and a DNA report establishing the applicant as the biological father. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that continued incarceration would be unjustified. The State and the third respondent opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the corroborating DNA evidence. The Court, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found that the DNA report substantiated the applicant's involvement and therefore saw no ground to exercise discretion in his favour, rejecting the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged sexual assault of a minor resulting in pregnancy, given the DNA evidence establishing paternity.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 332(b), 351(3), 64(2)(m), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- child rape
- DNA evidence
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
919-BA-138-2026(CR).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2026
Sagar Dattatray Sabale
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Mr. Omkar Tole, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the respondent-State
Ms. Supriya B. Koli for respondent no. 3
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.
No. 193/2025 registered with Karmala Police Station, District
IRESH
MASHAL
Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(m),
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
332(b), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 and
Date:
2026.04.20
18:27:02
+0530
6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Prosecution case is that, informant lodged complaint
alleging therein that on 17/03/2025 at about 10:00 am her minor
daughter complained of abdominal problem. Upon examination by
doctor, it was disclosed that victim was pregnant. Upon enquiry the
victim narrated that prior to four months, the applicant forcibly
Iresh 1 of 3
919-BA-138-2026(CR).doc
committed sexual intercourse with her.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
falsely involved in the case. Investigation is complete and charge-
sheet is filed. As such, further incarceration of the applicant would
be unjustified.
4. Per contra, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for
respondent no. 3 opposed the application submitting that the
applicant has indulged in sexually assaulting the victim who is 12
years and 8 months and in the process, the victim has delivered the
child. The DNA report also confirms that the applicant is a biological
father of the child.
5. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for respondent no. 3,
and perusal of material on record indicates that applicant’s
involvement in the alleged incident is duly confirmed in the wake of
DNA report which confirms the applicant is biological father of the
child.
6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out warranting
exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.
7. Resultantly, application stands rejected.
Iresh 2 of 3
919-BA-138-2026(CR).doc
8. Professional fees to be paid to learned counsel appointed
through Legal Aid for respondent no. 3 as per Rules.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
Iresh 3 of 3
Checking your session…