Bombay High Court
HANMANT RAJU JABDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant with conditions, holding that further detention was not warranted.
Summary
Hanmant Raju Jabde applied for regular bail in connection with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act. The applicant had previously been granted bail for an earlier FIR involving sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The present FIR, registered in 2025 for an alleged incident in 2023, alleged that the applicant uploaded obscene photographs of a minor and threatened the victim. The prosecution argued that the offences were serious and the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged acts. The court noted that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed, and the victim had attained majority in March 2026. Considering these facts, the court allowed the bail application, imposing a personal bond and several conditions, including restriction from entering District Nanded and a prohibition on tampering with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act and IT Act.
- Whether the existence of a prior bail order for a different FIR affects the grant of bail in the present case.
- Whether the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident precludes bail after the victim has attained majority.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 77, 78(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(e), 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- child protection
- cybercrime
- multiple FIRs
- victim majority
- court conditions
Judgment
1 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2004 OF 2025
HANMANT RAJU JABDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anup R. Nikam for the
Applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Naik for the
Respondent–State and Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate
Assist to APP.
2. By the present application, the Applicant seeks his release on
regular bail in connection with Crime No.0326 of 2025 registered with
Degloor Police Station, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded, for the
offences punishable under Sections 77, 78(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 66(e) and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2025, the
Tauseef
2 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025
maternal uncle of the minor victim girl discovered her objectionable
photographs on the social media platform Instagram. It is further
alleged that the Applicant followed her and persistently insisted on
communicating with her, despite her visible reluctance.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, insofar as
the first crime is concerned, the Applicant has already been released on
bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Bail
Application No.2133 of 2022. He submits that, in respect of the same
relationship between the parties, another FIR came to be registered
alleging that the Applicant had uploaded obscene photographs of the
prosecutrix. He further submits that the investigation is complete and
the charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant is presently in custody
and, therefore, his further detention is not necessary. He also submits
that the victim attained majority in March 2026.
5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. K. K. Naik for Respondent No.1–
State and Mr. Mukhedkar, learned Advocate assisting the prosecution,
strongly opposed the application. They submit that the Applicant is
involved in serious offences. It is further submitted that after being
released on bail in the earlier crime, the Applicant allegedly extended
threats to the complainant and her relatives, pursuant to which a Non-
Cognizable Complaint (N.C.) came to be registered. They submit that
an application for cancellation of bail was also moved on that basis;
Tauseef
3 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025
however, the same came to be dismissed by this Court today while
deciding the present bail application.
6. They further submit that the earlier FIR was registered in
respect of an incident that occurred in the year 2022, whereas the
present FIR pertains to an incident alleged to have occurred in the year
2023, though the FIR came to be registered in the year 2025. It is
contended that, notwithstanding completion of the investigation, the
prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. On these
grounds, they prayed for rejection of the application.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Advocates for the respective parties and perused the investigation
papers, particularly the order passed by this Court in Bail Application
No.2133 of 2022. As regards the first incident, the Applicant has
already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The subsequent FIR
pertains to an alleged incident of the year 2023, though the complaint
came to be lodged in the year 2025.
8. It is needless to state that there cannot be two FIRs in respect
of the same incident. The earlier FIR was already registered on the
allegations attracting the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and the POCSO Act, and the Applicant has been granted bail in
connection therewith.
Tauseef
4 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025
9. The present FIR pertains to the alleged incident of the year
2023, in connection with which the Applicant is in custody since
25.06.2025. The investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet
has been filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that further detention of the Applicant is not warranted.
Considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of the
proceedings, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing
appropriate conditions. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The application is allowed.
II. Applicant – Hanmant Raju Jabde be released on bail in
connection with Crime No.0326 of 2025 registered with
Degloor Police Station, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded,
for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 78(1),
351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Section 66(e) and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, on executing a P.R.
Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the
following conditions:
Tauseef
5 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025
(a) The Applicant shall not enter District Nanded till
conclusion of the trial, except for attending the
proceedings before the concerned Court.
(b) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the Trial Court on every effective date, unless
specifically exempted by the Trial Court.
(c) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
(d) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be
open for the prosecution or the complainant to
approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are
prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of
the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations made in this order
while deciding the case on its own merits.
IV. Bail before the learned Trial Court.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…