Bombay High Court
SUNIL SUNDAR GANDHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis, there is no material to justify continued incarceration and therefore bail is granted.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Sundar Gandhi, a senior citizen tuition teacher accused under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for allegedly assaulting a 10th‑standard student between September and October 2024. The FIR was lodged 18 months after the alleged incident, and earlier bail pleas had been rejected. The prosecution relied on an Instagram chat and the victim’s statement, while the defence highlighted the delay, lack of physical evidence, a clean medical report, and the applicant’s good character and lack of prior record. The Court observed that the delay raised a possibility of false implication and that the material on record was insufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions and clarified that its observations were limited to bail and not the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- The effect of an 18‑month delay in filing the FIR on the grant of bail in a POCSO case.
- Whether the Instagram chat and victim’s statement constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences under the POCSO Act mandates denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s senior citizen status, clean record and lack of incriminating medical evidence favor bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 18, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- sexual assault
- child protection
- senior citizen
- medical evidence
- Instagram chat
- false implication
Judgment
BA.3066.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3066 OF 2026
Sunil Sundar Gandhi .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr.Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Keral Mehta i/b. Prasnna Bamgale,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Viral Mukte, Advocate for Respondent No.2
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr.
Mukte, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and learned APP for
Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Present Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatita Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Applicant seeking
enlargement on bail in connection with FIR being CR No.27 of 2026
registered with Mahad Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
3. Briefly stated, Applicant is a senior citizen running private
tuition classes under the name and style of Sunil Gandhi Classes from
his residence at Tambad Bhuvan, Mahad. First Informant – Respondent
1 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
No.2 was a 10th standard student enrolled in private tuition classes
conducted by Applicant.
4. It is prosecution’s case that between September 2024 and
October 2024, Applicant conducted extra classes during which he
locked Respondent No.2 in the classroom, forceably kissed him and
outraged him without his consent. FIR was filed on 04.04.2026 after
one year and 7 months and Applicant was arrested on 05.04.2026.
5. Applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.53 of
2026 before Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon seeking grant of bail
which came to be rejected by order dated 22.04.2026. Subsequently,
Investigating Officer filed Chargesheet No.31 of 2026 before POCSO
Special Court, Mangaon registered as Special Case No.30 of 2026.
Thereafter, Applicant filed Bail Application in Special Case No.30 of
2026 which was rejected by order dated 11.06.2026. Hence present
Bail Application.
6. Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit
that Applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. He would
submit that Applicant’s Instagram chat dated 01.04.2026 with his
friend, appended to Chargesheet, is a cooked up document prepared
only after Applicant’s sister decided to take action against Applicant.
6.1. He would submit that case of prosecution is that present
incident left Respondent No.2 in a traumatized state however
Applicant voluntarily continued his private tuition at Applicant’s classes
2 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
and cleared his 10th Standard Board Exams with 96.20%, hence such
academic excellence does not reflect the prosecution’s theory of
Respondent No.2 undergoing severe trauma due to the incident. He
would submit that there is an inordinate delay of nearly 18 months in
filing FIR and reporting the incident.
6.2. He would submit that Respondent No.2’s fall in academic
performance happened due to rigorous JEE coaching classes and his
subsequent psychiatric evaluation took place between late 2025 and
early 2026 which is admittedly a full year after leaving Applicant’s
private tuition. He would submit that Medico Legal Examination
Report dated 05.04.2026 records clear finding that there was no
external injury noted and FSL Report dated 07.04.2026 states that no
potential exhibits are found at the crime scene hence there is no trace
of any evidence that links Applicant to the alleged incident.
6.3. He would submit that Additional Sessions Judge failed to
consider that Respondent No.2 resides in Panvel with his sister due to
his enrollment in coaching classes for JEE examination and he does not
reside in Mahad anymore, hence Applicant cannot influence
Respondent No.2 or any witness. He would urge this Court to enlarge
Applicant on bail in light of his aforementioned submissions.
7. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP would submit that between
September 2024 and October 2024, Applicant sexually assaulted
Respondent No.2 as a result of which Respondent No.2 struggled with
3 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
concentration and underwent a serious dip in his academic
performance. He would submit that Investigation Officer appended
Instagram chat between Respondent No.2 and one of his friend
wherein Respondent No.2 confessed the nature of Applicant’s conduct
to his friend. He would submit that the nature of the deeds and
actions are serious and grevious in nature and therefore Applicant
ought to be denied grant of bail. He would submit that Applicant is a
well known and influential person in Mahad and his release from jail
would prejudice the trial and influence Respondent No.2 and all
witnesses.
8. Mr. Mukte, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – First
Informant would adopt the submissions of the learned APP and would
further refer to and rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Mayur Raju Wankhede Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1 to
contend that POCSO Act represents the legislative intent to provide
stringent protection to children from sexual offences and that Courts
have a solemn duty to ensure this legislative intent is not defeated by
following liberal approach in granting bail.
9. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties
and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case.
Submissions made by the learned Advocates at the bar have received
due consideration of the Court.
1 Bail Application No.879 of 2025 decided on 02nd July 2025
4 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
10. At the outset, one thing is certain and clear that on the
version of Respondent No.2 – First Informant’s own case, there is an
unreasonable delay of more than one and half year i.e. 18 months
between the alleged act and registration of the First Information
Report. One of the submission made by the learned APP and the
Advocate for Respondent No.2, is that Instagram chat between
Applicant and his friend are appended and this chat shows the nature
of the crime allegedly committed by Applicant. However this singular
chat when seen, prima facie does not explicitly describe the
commission of the offence with which Applicant is charged neither
does this chat state the time, place or nature of the offence. Hence in
my opinion this cannot be the sole material for considering denying
bail to Applicant. It is further seen that prosecution have failed to
record the statement of students except two students, who were part of
the same batch of students with Respondent No. 2 – Victim or of the
previous or later batches of students. It is seen that both these students
were batchmates of the victim and their statements are appended on
page Nos.230 and 231 of the Application and have not revealed
anything incongruous or objectionable qua the Applicant before me.
11. It is prima facie, seen that FIR was recorded after an
inordinate delay of 18 months and delay in lodging FIR in such a
serious sexual offence case is often of little consequence, but however
this principle is not absolute and where there is a discernible possibility
5 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
of false implication, such a delay must be scrutinised very closely. In
the present case, Respondent No.2 – Victim filed FIR afrer over 18
months from the date of incident. This inordinate delay cannot be
viewed lightly and Respondent No.2’s explanation that this incident
was the cause of fall in his academic performance cannot be
countenanced by Court in the absense of any incriminating material.
12. Medical evidence supports Applicant’s defence of innocence
at this prima facie stage. It is seen that Applicant was arrested on
05.04.2026, and since then, he has been in judicial custody.
Investigation in the case is completed, and chargesheet is filed before
the Special Court. Therefore, further judicial incarceration does not
serve any purpose. Applicant has no prior antecedents, his credentials
as a private tuition teacher and achievements are not only good but
even well documented in various regional newspapers.
13. In view of the above observations arrived at after perusing
the FIR, statement of the Respondent No.2 and the material appended
in the Chargesheet, prima facie there is no material placed on record to
persuade me to continue the incarceration of Applicant in prison.
14. Having regard to all the above aspects, I am inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:
(i) Applicant – Sunil Sundar Gandhi is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with
one or two sureties in the like amount;
6 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
(ii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station once every month on the third Sunday
between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the first six months and
thereafter as and when called;
(iii) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted
and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so,
it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this
order;
(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Trial Court;
(v) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vi) Applicant shall not make any attempts to contact the First
Informant / victim or any witnesses by any physical or
electronic means and attempt to influence them or tamper with
evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of
his current address and mobile contact number and / or change
of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;
7 of 8
BA.3066.2026.doc
(viii) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the victim either
physically or by any electronic devices / means until the trial is
completed and the verdict is delivered by the Trial Court; and
(ix) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the
prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.
15. 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 and the trial shall be adjudicated on
its own merits in accordance with law.
16. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Mukte,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of Respondent No. 2. His fees are 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.2and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.19
14:55:21 +0530
2 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024
8 of 8
Checking your session…