Bombay High Court

PRAVEEN YADAV UNAWANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant with stringent conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a fresh bail application filed by Mr. Praveen Yadav Unawane, who is charged under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i) and POCSO Act sections 4 and 8 for allegedly kidnapping, marrying and raping a 14‑year‑old girl. His earlier bail was cancelled by the Court because the victim’s mother was not heard, an error in the arrest date, and a non‑cooperation complaint, and the trial court failed to frame charges within the stipulated period. The applicant has been in custody for over four years, but no new threat or offence has been recorded since the cancellation. Relying on Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court held that a fresh bail application after cancellation is maintainable, especially when the charge has not been framed and the applicant has not taken advantage of the delay. Consequently, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions, including surety, periodic police attendance, residence restrictions, and non‑interference with evidence or witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether a fresh bail application can be entertained after the earlier bail was cancelled.
Whether the delay in framing charges and the applicant's prolonged incarceration justify granting bail.
Whether the seriousness of the offences under IPC and POCSO precludes bail in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366(A), 376(2)(i)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO
kidnapping
rape
child sexual offences
charge framing
high court
criminal procedure

Judgment

WAKLE
MANOJ                 MANOJ                                               905-BA-155-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.10.07
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
19:06:59 +0530
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2026
                      Mr. Praveen Yadav Unawane                           …Applicant
                              V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     …Respondents

                      Ms. Meghna Gowalani a/w Adv. Saharsh Manyar, for the
                      Applicant.
                      Ms. Anagha A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Rutvij Solanki (appointed Advocate through Legal Aid) a/w
                      Mr. Sohan Patil, for the Respondent No.2.
                      Ms. Suvarna Walke, PSI, Ulhasnagar Police Station, present.

                                                CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                DATED : 6th OCTOBER, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                      2.      Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Special
                      Sessions Case (POCSO) No.236 of 2022. Said case arising out of an
                      FIR bearing Cr.No.100 of 2022, registered with Ulhasnagar Police
                      Station, Thane City for the offence punishable under Sections 363,
                      366(A) & 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and
                      Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
                      Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), on the report dated 25 th February, 2022
                      filed by Respondent No.2 - mother of the victim girl.

                      3.      Respondent No.2 is the mother of the victim girl, aged 14
                      years. The allegations against the applicant are that, between 24 th
                      February, 2022 to 8th July, 2022, the applicant kidnapped the
                      victim out of her lawful guardianship and took her to Nashik. There,
                      he performed marriage with her. The two then resided together as
                      husband and wife. During that period, the applicant had committed



                                                     Page 1 of 4
MANOJ                                                  905-BA-155-2026.DOC



sexual intercourse with the victim. Consequently, the aforesaid
crime came to be registered and the applicant was arrested.

4.      Initially, the Special Court released the applicant on bail. Said
Order was challenged before this Court by Respondent No.2 filing
Criminal Application No.38 of 2023. After considering the facts and
circumstances of the case; vide Order dated 11th July, 2024, this
Court canceled the bail for the reasons that, the Respondent mother
was not heard while deciding the bail application; that, the date of
the arrest of the applicant was wrongly considered as 25.02.2022
instead of the correct date 20.07.2022; and, registration of NC
complaint against mother of the applicant for allegedly threatening
the family of the victim. Additionally, considering the seriousness of
the matter, the trial Court was directed to frame the charge within
six weeks from the date of the said Order i.e. 11th July, 2024.

5.      Ms. Gowalani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that, till date, the charge is not framed. Meanwhile, the applicant
filed an application for bail (Exhibit–21). But, the Special Court
rejected that application. Therefore, the present bail application is
preferred on the ground of prolonged incarceration. She submits
that the applicant will abide by all the conditions for bail as may be
imposed by this Court. Therefore, she urged to grant bail.

6.      Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP and Mr. Solanki, learned
counsel for Respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted
that the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled due to the
threatening the family of the victim by the mother of the applicant.
They submitted that, considering the facts of the case, on grant of
the bail, the possibility of repeating such a threat by the applicant
and his family, cannot be ruled out. It is pointed that the applicant



                                Page 2 of 4
MANOJ                                                 905-BA-155-2026.DOC



surrendered two months after cancellation of the bail. In this
background, bail be refused.

7.      I have considered these submissions. As held in Vipin
Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3034, such fresh bail application after cancellation of the bail
granted earlier, is maintainable in law. In the case in hand, after
cancellation of the bail, the charge is not framed. This indicate that
the direction of this Court to frame the charge is not followed.
Therefore, the two months delay in the surrender by the applicant is
insignificant. Because, he has not taken any advantage of that delay.
After cancellation of the bail, till the date, there is no fresh instance
of threatening any member of the victim side. The Roznamas of the
case are enclosed with the application. Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP
and Mr. Solanki, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 have
candidly stated that, the applicant is not blamable for not framing
the charge. After cancellation of the bail, the applicant has suffered
incarceration for 2 years and 2 months because of the threat made
by his mother. And total such incarceration is 4 years 2 months.

8.      As per the prosecution case, the victim girl and the applicant,
who were then aged 14 and half years and 21 years respectively,
were in love relationship and consequently, they eloped and stayed
together, during which the physical relationship were established.

9.      In this peculiar background, the applicant deserves to be
released on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, following Order:-

        (i)   Applicant – Mr. Praveen Yadav Unawane, shall be
        released on bail in connection with Special Sessions Case
        (POCSO) No.236 of 2022 arising out of an FIR bearing
        Cr.No.100 of 2022, registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station,


                                Page 3 of 4
MANOJ                                                      905-BA-155-2026.DOC



        Thane City, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
        Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

        (ii)   The applicant shall mark his attendance at Ulhasnagar
        Police Station, on the 1 st day of a month, every three month,
        between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

        (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
        before the jurisdictional Court.

        (iv)   The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
        evidence and shall not influence upon the prosecution
        witness to prevent them from deposing against him.

        (v)    The applicant shall not reside in Thane District except
        to mark his attendance at Ulhasnagar Police Station, as
        above. As informed by Ms. Gowalani, the applicant shall
        reside at his place “Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar”, till
        conclusion of the trial.

        (vi)   On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
        his    contact   number      and     residential   address   to   the
        Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
        there is any change.

        (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
        Order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail
        application and should not influence the outcome of the trial
        and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
        merits of the case.

10.     Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

                                   Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…