Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANDIP SUKALAL PAWARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal
APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that there was no justification to keep the applicant in custody and granted bail.

Summary

The applicant, Sandip Sukalal Pawara, was charged with offences including rape, forced marriage of a minor, and offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act. The allegation was that he compelled the victim to marry a co‑accused and received Rs. 3.60 lakh for the arrangement, with the FIR lodged after a considerable delay. The applicant argued that the co‑accused had already been released on bail, that the victim's Aadhaar indicated she was a major at the relevant time, and that there was no evidence of the alleged payment. The State contended that the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail and noted the informant’s failure to appear. The Court observed that, apart from the victim’s testimony, there was no corroborative evidence of the monetary transaction and that the applicant was not a flight risk. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a PR bond and surety conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences such as rape, forced marriage and offences under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts.
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence on the alleged monetary transaction affect the grant of bail.
  • Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence or interfering with witnesses.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • rape
  • forced marriage
  • POCSO
  • SC/ST Act
  • delay in FIR
  • pre‑trial detention
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42309




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1887 OF 2026

                                     Sandip Sukalal Pawara
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another

           Mr. A. S. Savale, Advocate for applicant
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for respondent-State
           Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2

                                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                              DATE         : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.          Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 237

           of 2022 registered with Dhadgaon Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the

           offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 366(A), 372, 373, 506,

           34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(L), 6 of the Protection

           of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)

           (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.


           2.          First Informant is the father of the victim girl. According to

           him, present applicant and his wife went to their home and asked the

           victim to accompany them. There is allegation that they took victim to

           the place at the distance of 500 KMs where forcibly her marriage was

           performed to co-accused Govind. There is allegation that present

           applicant has received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- for arranging said



           22-BA-1887-2026.odt                                                  1 of 4
marriage of victim i.e., said to be minor girl and was subjected to sexual

relations with co-accused Govind.


3.          Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused

Govind against whom there is allegation of committing rape on the victim

has been enlarged on regular bail by the trial Court, it is his submission

that having regard to the said fact the present bail application cannot be

rejected. He further submits that there is evidence in the form of Adhar

Card collected during the course of investigation indicating that victim

was major at the relevant time and considering the delay caused in

lodging of the report, possibility of performing marriage on her free will

is not ruled out. According to him there is no evidence to the effect that

applicant received any money as alleged.


4.          Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant who was

appointed by this Court submits that in view of the fact that the

informant in spite of service of notice has failed to cause appearance

before the Court to oppose grant of any relief to the applicant. According

to them, allegation against the applicant is that he forcibly made the

victim to marry with co-accused on receipt of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Having

regard to the seriousness of the crime, application deserves to be

rejected.




22-BA-1887-2026.odt                                                  2 of 4
5.               Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is

inordinate delay in lodging First Information Report. The accused against

whom there is allegation about committing rape on the victim is already

enlarged on bail. As far as allegation against present applicant of

receiving Rs. 3,60,000/- is concerned and except for the statement of

victim and other witnesses who do not claim that such transaction having

taken place in their presence, there is no other evidence to support this

allegation. The applicant cannot be kept in jail by way of pre trial

sentence. He is not likely to flee from justice. This Court finds no

justification not to allow the application. Hence, application stands

allowed.

                                      ORDER

           (i)      Application is allowed.

           (ii)  Applicant be released on bail in connection with
           Crime No. 237 of 2022 registered with Dhadgaon Police
           Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable
           under Sections 376(2)(N), 366(A), 372, 373, 506, 34 of
           the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(L), 6 of the
           Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and
           under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
           Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, he shall be released
           on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
           Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
           like amount.

           (iii) He shall attend all dates of hearing of trial unless
           exempted from appearance.

           (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or
           indirectly.



22-BA-1887-2026.odt                                                     3 of 4
              (v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any
              manner whatsoever.

              (vi) He is further directed to cooperate             the
              investigating agency for further investigation.


6.              Fees of appointed counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.




                                                         (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

B. S. Joshi




22-BA-1887-2026.odt                                                        4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.