Bombay High Court
VINODKUMAR GANPATLAL AJNERIAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted on the ground of prolonged incarceration as the trial delay is not attributable to the applicant.
Summary
Vinodkumar Ganpatlal Ajneria was charged with offences under the IPC, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the POCSO Act for allegedly inducing a 14‑year‑old girl into prostitution. He was arrested along with co‑accused after a police raid. The applicant’s earlier bail application had been rejected, but he has now been in custody for over five years without any substantive trial progress, no witnesses examined, and the victim is untraceable. The court noted that the delay was not attributable to the applicant and that a co‑accused had previously been granted bail. Considering the prolonged incarceration and lack of material progress, the court granted bail with conditions. The bail order emphasizes that the observations are limited to the bail application and do not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences under IPC, PITA and POCSO.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over five years justifies bail on the ground of delay not attributable to the accused.
- Whether any new ground for bail exists beyond the earlier rejected application.
Legislation cited
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 4, 5
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 336A, 34, 370(1)(4), 372
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 16, 17, 18, 4
Subjects
- bail
- undertrial detention
- prolonged incarceration
- sexual offences
- child prostitution
- POCSO
- PITA
- IPC
- trial delay
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN
SHIV H.C.SHIV 921.BA1906.26.DOC
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.08.19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:40:38 +0300
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1906 OF 2026
Vinodkumar Ganpatlal Ajneria …. Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave with Tanmay R. Tendulkar for the
Applicant.
Mr.T. G. Khan, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Ruju Thakkar, Advocate appointed for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Janardhan Chogule, PSI, Andheri police station present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
connection with C.R. No.51 of 2021, registered with Andheri police
station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 336A,
370(1)(4), 372 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), under
Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
(“PITA”) and under Sections 4, 16, 17 and 18 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) on the
report lodged by Mr.Rupesh More, Police Constable.
3. The prosecution case is that, the Applicant in furtherance of
his common intention with co-accused instigated the victim girl
aged 14 years to enter into prostitution by giving her an
allurement of money. Police conducted a raid with the help of a
decoy customer and panchans and apprehended the Applicant
along with co-accused while committing the said offence.
Page 1 of 4
H.C.SHIV 921.BA1906.26.DOC
Accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to registered and on
completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed.
4. Mr.Dave, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the Applicant is seeking bail only on the ground of prolonged
incarceration.
5. In reply, Mr.Khan, learned APP submitted that, admittedly,
the first Bail Application was rejected on merits. No new ground is
made out for bail. Therefore and, considering the seriousness of
offence, the bail may be refused.
6. I have considered these submissions. The Applicant’s earlier
BA/684/2023 was rejected by this Court on merits, but, granting
the liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial does not
progress substantially and the delay is not attributable to the
Applicant. Till the date, the Applicant has undergone for 5 years
and 7 months as an under-trial prisoner. Although, charge is
framed, no witnesses is examined and the delay is not attributable
to the Applicant, submits Mr.Dave. This submission has not
received any resistance from the Respondent.
Co-accused Ashish Patel has been granted bail by this Court
vide Order dated 29.04.2025 in BA/1402/2025, as he was
incarcerated for a period of 4 years 3 months. Since then, there is
no material progress in the case. Additionally, it was noticed that
the victim girl is not traceable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
trial will be concluded in the foreseeable future.
7. As a result, the Applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of
prolonged incarceration. Hence, following Order :-
Page 2 of 4
H.C.SHIV 921.BA1906.26.DOC
(i) The Applicant – Vinodkumar Ganpatlal Ajneria be
released on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Andheri
police station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Andheri
police station, Mumbai on 15th day of a month every two
months 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 unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) The Applicant shall not enter within the jurisdiction
of Mumbai till the conclusion of the trial, except to mark his
attendance in Andheri police station, Mumbai and before
the trial Court.
(vii) The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.
Page 3 of 4
H.C.SHIV 921.BA1906.26.DOC
(viii) 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 out come of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…