Bombay High Court
AMOL SUDHAKAR GAWALIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused on a personal bond of Rs.5,000 with sureties, subject to conditions of non‑interference with evidence and witnesses.
Summary
Amol Sudhakar Gawali was charged under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for outraging the modesty of an eight‑year‑old girl. He had been in custody for over a year with no significant progress in the trial. The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the prolonged detention was unjustified, while the prosecution contended that the seriousness of the offence and risk of absconding or witness tampering warranted denial of bail. The Court noted that the maximum punishment was three years, the trial was delayed, and bail could be conditioned to mitigate risks. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.5,000 with one or two solvent sureties, imposing conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and directed the trial court to proceed on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO case involving an eight‑year‑old victim despite alleged risk of absconding and witness tampering.
- Whether the delay in trial and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention justify the grant of bail.
- Whether imposing a personal bond and surety conditions is sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences against child
- pre‑trial detention
- surety
- criminal procedure
Judgment
21-BA-2807-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2807 OF 2025
Amol Sudhakar Gawali … Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Respondents
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH
KAMBLE ________________________________________________________
KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.16
15:35:03 +0530
Ms.Manisha Devkar a/w Ms.Anjali Kondvilkar, for the Applicant.
Ms.P.P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms.Kanchan Pawar, for Respondent No.2-Appointed Advocate.
Ms.Madhumati Shinde, API, Pimpri Police Station.
________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :
. By this Application, Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime
No.1045 of 2024, registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act
(‘BNS’ for short) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short).
2. It is prosecution’s case that, on 16 th November 2024, the
Applicant picked up the minor daughter of the First Informant, who was
playing in front of her house, and outraged her modesty.
Page 1 of 3
21-BA-2807-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that, the
Applicant is behind bar for more than one year. There is no progress in
trial. It may take time to conclude the trial, and requested to allow the
Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP alongwith learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 that the Applicant outraged modesty of victim, who was
about 8 years old. If Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten
prosecution witnesses and victim, and requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offences registered
against the Applicant is of 3 years. The Applicant is behind bar for more
than one year. There is no progress in trial.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant-Amol Sudhakar Gawali be released on
bail in Crime No.1045 of 2024, registered with Pimpri Police
Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.5,000/- with one
or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
Page 2 of 3
21-BA-2807-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(iv) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…