Bombay High Court
SUNIL UTTAM DHEREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis, the allegations of forcible abduction lack merit and the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to conditions.
Summary
Sunil Uttam Dhere was charged under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly abducting and attempting to force a marriage with a 17‑year‑old girl. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita indicated that the relationship with the accused was consensual and that she left voluntarily, undermining the prosecution’s claim of forcible abduction. The applicant argued that the investigation was complete, the charge‑sheet filed, and that there was no coercion, seeking regular bail. The court examined the prima facie facts, noted the lack of evidence of force, the contemporaneous age of the parties, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, concluding that bail could be granted with stringent conditions to prevent evidence tampering. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a cash bond and specific undertakings.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite charges under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act
- Whether there is a substantial risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 183
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 3(5), 49, 64(1), 78, 87
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- consent
- minor
- abduction
- evidence tampering
- liberty
- POCSO
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:1792
931 BA No.2406.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2406 OF 2025
SUNIL UTTAM DHERE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. P. Munde
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. B. B. Bhise
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S. B. Kendre
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 17th January, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 11.07.2025 bearing Crime
No. 208 of 2025 registered with Loha Police Station, Dist. Nanded
for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 78, 64(1),
49, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and
12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case is that the that the informant
resides with her daughters, including the 17-year-old victim. The
victim, who was residing in Nanded prosecuting her education,
informed the informant in June 2025 that the accused, a relative,
had been frequently visiting her room and college to pressure her
931 BA No.2406.2025
-2-
into marriage. Consequently, the victim was called back to her
home. The informant and her husband confronted the accused and
his mother regarding this behavior. Approximately eight days prior
to the incident, the accused and his mother visited the informant’s
residence to formally demand the victim's marriage; however, the
family refused the proposal as the accused was already married.
On 09.07.2025, at approximately 22:45 hours, the accused forcibly
entered the informant's house and abducted the minor victim on a
motorcycle. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant and victim were in love relation and the same is apparent
from the record and charge-sheet. However, because the family
members of the victim are opposing the same, the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that
victim and applicant is having material match in age and the victim
was well aware of consequences of her acts and deeds. As the
investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and
nothing further remains to be recovered from the applicant, it is
prayed that the applicant be admitted to bail.
4. The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel
931 BA No.2406.2025
-3-
appointed on behalf of respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the
application, submitting that the applicant is indulged in serious
offenses. The conduct of applicant disentitles from claiming bail.
Considering the serious nature of these offenses, it is contended
that the applicant's release on bail would create a significant risk of
tampering with evidence. Consequently, the APP and the learned
counsel for respondent No. 2 pray for the application to be
rejected.
5. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, it is
prima facie evident that the victim was in a relationship. A perusal
of the victim's statement, recorded under Section 183 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), reveals that the
applicant never exercised force or coercion. The victim explicitly
stated that she has been in a consensual love relationship with the
applicant for the past year. This version, prima facie, undermines
the prosecution's allegation of forcible abduction and indicates that
victim’s departure on 09.07.2025 was a voluntary act.
6. Moreover, the applicant and the victim are of
contemporaneous age. Thus, prima facie, the factual matrix those
931 BA No.2406.2025
-4-
are emerging does not reflect any active inducement or coercive
conduct on the part of the accused. The arrest of the applicant has
been effected on 18.07.2025 and since then, he is in judicial
custody.
7. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the investigation is
complete for all intent and purpose, resultantly, the charge-sheet is
filed. Having regard to the number the witnesses, which the
prosecution proposes to examine, it is very unlikely that the trial
can be commenced and concluded within a reasonable period. As
such, further incarceration of the application as an under-trial
prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to be
either warranted or justified. I am, therefore, persuaded to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant's right to liberty needs to be upheld by
imposing stringent conditions. The learned APP's apprehension
about tampering with the prosecution evidence can be adequately
taken care of by imposing certain stringent conditions. In that view
of the matter, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
931 BA No.2406.2025
-5-
9. Resultantly, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Sunil Uttam Dhere be released on regular
bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent sureties
in the like amount, in connection with Crime No. 208
of 2025 registered with Loha Police Station, Dist.
Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 87, 78, 64(1), 49, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the
following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar or Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
931 BA No.2406.2025
-6-
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…