SHUBHAM SHASHIKANT SALIversusTHE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                           39. BA 2489-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2489 OF 2026

                      Shubham Shashikant Sali                          .Applicant

                                  Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                  .Respondents
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Alpesh Vegad, Mr. Pradip Naik & Mr. Kitik
SUDAME                Gupta, Advocates, for the Applicant
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
                      Ms. Rajeshree Newton, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.23
                      Ms. Tithi Raut, Appointed Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
20:09:12 +0530
                      Ms. Priyanka Shivaji Karande, PSI, Wakad Police Station, Pune present

                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE     : 22.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Ganesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Ms.

                      Newton, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Raut, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      This Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya

                      Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in connection with

                      C.R.No.738 of 2025 registered with Wakad Police Station, Pune for

                      offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 318(4), 316(2),

                      351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”)

                      and under Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from

                      Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO”).

                      Anand                             1 of 7
                                                        39. BA 2489-2026.doc

3.      The Applicant is 32 years old, whereas the prosecutrix is 16 years

old at the time of commission of the crime as incident in question

occurred in the year 2020. The date is not clear on reading of the FIR.

FIR is filed by the mother of prosecutrix namely the First Informant on

18.12.2025 after a hiatus of five years. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of Applicant has persuaded Court to consider the

precursor incident rather incidents in question. He would fairly argue

that the Applicant was instrumental in sponsoring substantial amounts

for building and development of a landed immovable property

belonging to the First Informant situated at Malavali, Lonavala, Pune.

He would submit that at the then time, the First Informant and her two

daughters were residing in Pune when in 2020 the Applicant

refriended them and had gained their complete confidence. The

Applicant for that matter claims to be a Vastu Visharad and a Vastu

Expert also Pendulum Expert as also Reiki Healing Master and

paranormal investigator and has an official handle called Babaji Ka

Gyan. This is what is gathered from the material which is placed before

me and he also runs an ISO certified Dharuma Healing Centre in Pune.

Mr. Gupta would submit that in July, 2025 namely on 17.07.2025, a

detailed complaint was filed by the Applicant with the Commissioner of

Police in Pune City, inter alia against the First Informant. This


Anand                              2 of 7
                                                        39. BA 2489-2026.doc

complaint is filed on 17.07.2025, inter alia, disclosing the fact that the

prosecutrix/victim who was then a major person and the Applicant

before me were in a love relationship. It is so stated in that complaint.

The issue relating to the development which was undertaken by

Applicant qua the First Informant is also stated in the said complaint.

The precursor to that complaint happens to be a compliant filed by the

First Informant on 09.07.2025 with a social organization called Dalit

Panthers Group with regard to and alleging that Applicant had duped

the First Informant for a substantial sum of money. The Applicant has

placed on record all details in his complaint. The present FIR is filed on

18.12.2025 by the First Informant for the first time about the incident

which took place in the year 2020 when the prosecutrix/victim was 16

years old and below 18 years and a minor. After going through the

material placed on record which is the second limb of Mr. Gupta’s

submissions, inter alia, with regard to the statements recorded by the

prosecution pursuant to filing of the present FIR and appended from

page No. 259 onwards, it is prima facie clear that the First Informant

and the Applicant had a clear subsisting relationship since 2020 with

regard to development of the immovable property and most

importantly, the Applicant had through various vendors and contractors

carried out substantial construction of the house of the First Informant.


Anand                             3 of 7
                                                       39. BA 2489-2026.doc

The said statements also give primacy to the fact that the Applicant was

very close to the family of First Informant and more specifically her two

daughters. That itself prima facie explains the case of the Applicant

before me.

4.      Per contra, Ms. Raut, learned Appointed Advocate would

however, persuade the Court to consider the fact that the Applicant,

being a major has in fact duped the prosecutrix. She would attempt to

argue that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. But

then when a pointed question is asked with regard to the delay in filing

the FIR, there is no answer to the same. It is true that delay in filing

FIR in such matters can always be considered by the Court in view of

the trauma that the victim faces but such is not the case before me.

There is no element of trauma whatsoever especially when even the

date of incident is not given specifically and therefore, delay of five

years does not enure to the benefit of the First Informant before me.

Prima facie, after considering the material which is placed before me, I

am of the opinion that the FIR which has been filed is the outburst

againnst the two precursor twin complaints dated 09.07.2026 and

17.07.2025 which were already before the police authorities qua the

First Informant and the Applicant before me.

5.      In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the


Anand                             4 of 7
                                                          39. BA 2489-2026.doc

submissions made by Mr. Gupta and release the Applicant on bail.

6.      Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings,

Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms

and conditions:-

           (i)   Applicant – Shubham Shashikant Sali is directed to be

                 immediately released from prison in connection with

                 CR. No. 738 of 2025 ;


           (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing

                 P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand

                 only) with one surety of the like amount;


           (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

                 Wakad Police Station, Pune, once every month, on the

                 first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

                 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall

                 attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;


           (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial

                 and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,

                 unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek

                 unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall

                 entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;


Anand                               5 of 7
                                                          39. BA 2489-2026.doc

           (v) Applicant shall not leave the Country without prior

                 permission of the Trial Court;


           (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

                 tamper with the evidence in any manner;


           (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

                 of his current residential address and mobile telephone

                 number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating

                 Officer of any change in his residential address or

                 mobile telephone number, as and when such change

                 occurs; and


           (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid

                 conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

                 the Applicant.


7.      It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited

for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any

observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made

hereinabove in this order.


8.      This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Raut,

Anand                               6 of 7
                                                        39. BA 2489-2026.doc

learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the cause

of Respondent No. 2. Her fees are directed to be paid by the High Court

Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a server copy

of this order and other compliances in accordance with the decision of

this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State of

Maharashtra & Anr., reported in Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in

Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024 and the Schedule under

Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority

Rules, 1998.


9.      Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.




                                                 (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                              7 of 7