Bombay High Court
CHINTAN VINESH TOPRANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail application is rejected; the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Chintan Vinesh Toprani, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 74, 75, 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for outraging a woman's modesty and making obscene comments at CSMT Railway Station. The prosecution presented CCTV footage and the victim’s identification during the trial‑in‑process, establishing a prima facie case. The applicant argued that the FIR named an unknown person, his arrest was merely on suspicion, and he had been detained for four months without trial, contending he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The State highlighted the applicant’s two prior convictions under IPC Sections 354D and 354 and the POCSO Act, indicating a pattern of similar offences and a likelihood of reoffending if released. Weighing the seriousness of the alleged offence, the strength of the evidence, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the Court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that the order is limited to this bail matter and does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite a prima facie case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicant’s prior convictions under IPC and the POCSO Act warrant denial of bail.
- Whether the risk of the applicant committing further similar offences justifies refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 74, 75, 78, 79
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 354D
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 18, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- sexual offences
- outraging modesty
- CCTV evidence
- prior convictions
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
WAKLE
WAKLE
MANOJ
MANOJ
JANARDHAN
MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN Date:
2026.09.29
10:01:02
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3132 OF 2026
Chintan Vinesh Toprani …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Mr. Saurabh D. Butala, for the Applicant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an FIR
bearing Cr.No.247 of 2026, registered with CSMT Railway Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75,
78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the
report dated 4th April, 2026 filed by the informant (“the victim”).
3. Prosecution case is that, on 1 st April, 2026 at about 12.45 p.m.
at CSMT Railway Station, when the victim aged 24 years was seated
in a train, an unknown person came there and, outrage her modesty
and addressed an obscene comment towards her. Therefore,
aforesaid crime came to be registered. During investigation, police
arrested the applicant. The investigation revealed that the applicant
was the same person who committed this offence. Therefore, the
applicant was arrested and stood charge-sheeted. The trial Court
declined to release the applicant on bail.
4. Mr. Sathe, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that,
the offence was registered against an unknown person. The
Page 1 of 3
MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC
applicant is arrested only on suspicion. There is delay in the TIP.
Therefore, the identity of the applicant is doubtful. The alleged
offence is punishable with maximum imprisonment of five year. The
applicant is behind bars for four months. His further detention will
not serve any purpose. The trial will take a considerable time. Even
if there are two criminal antecedents, therein, the applicant is on
bail The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the
evidence. He, therefore, urged to grant the bail.
5. Mr. Chate, learned APP, on the other hand, has strongly
opposed the application contending that there is sufficient material
against the applicant of having committed this offence and there are
two criminal antecedents of similar nature.
6. I have considered these submissions. The FIR clearly narrates
that the victim was followed by the offender and he had outraged
her modesty. Further, he had passed an indecent comment against
her. Based on the CCTV footage the applicant was arrested. The
victim identified the applicant during the TIP. Therefore, there is a
prima facie case against the applicant of having committed this
offence. Record indicates that, applicant has two antecedents: one
u/Ss. 354D IPC and 18 POCSO Act, the another u/Ss.354 IPC and 8
& 18 POCSO Act. No doubt, said cases have been registered in 2019.
Nevertheless, it appears that, the applicant has tendency of
committing such offences and even after 7 years, he has not
improved his conduct. This indicates that he has no fear of law.
Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to commit
similar offence.
7. As a result, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The
application is liable to be rejected and is rejected, accordingly.
Page 2 of 3
MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC
8. It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order
are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail application and
should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…