Bombay High Court
BHAIRAVNATH VASANT GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the accused, subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Bhairavnath Vasant Gaikwad, who was charged under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for alleged sexual assault of a minor. The applicant had been in custody for over seven months and the investigation was complete with a charge‑sheet filed. While the State argued that the offences were serious and that the accused might tamper with witnesses, the Court noted the possibility of over‑implication and the prejudice of prolonged pre‑trial detention. It held that the risk of witness tampering could be mitigated by imposing strict bail conditions. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with conditions restricting the accused’s movement, mandating attendance at trial, and prohibiting any interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention of more than seven months is justified.
- Whether the risk of witness tampering can be adequately addressed through bail conditions.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 64(1), 65(1), 74, 75, 78, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- POCSO
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- witness tampering
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
Judgment
908-BA-317-2026 (CR).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 317 OF 2026
Bhairavnath Vasant Gaikwad
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.
...
Mr. Shankar Katkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Deokar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Rajnandini P. Katkar, appointed Advocate for the Respondent
No.3.
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 8th MAY, 2026
P. C. :
1. The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No.
806 of 2025 dated 04.10.2025 registered with Mangalvedha Police
Station, District Solapur, for the offences punishable under Sections
64(1), 65(1), 74, 75, 78, 79, 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Section 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the case. There is inordinate delay in
lodging the complaint. The applicant is in custody since 04.10.2025
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT i.e. for more than Seven months. Investigation is completed and the
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.05.08
15:40:10
+0530
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
908-BA-317-2026 (CR).doc
charge-sheet is filed. The trial is unlikely to conclude within a
reasonable period. As such, further incarceration of the applicant is
unjustified. Hence, prayed to allow the application.
3. Per contra, learned APP assisted by the learned counsel
representing Respondent No.3 opposed the application submitting
that the offence is serious in nature. The minor girl was stalked and
sexually assaulted by the present applicant. An apprehension is also
expressed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every
possibility of tampering prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed to
reject the application.
4. Having heard the submissions from the respective sides and
upon perusal of the record including charge-sheet indicates that the
applicant and victim were known to each other for a considerable
period. The statement of the victim prima facie indicates that the
relationship of the victim and the applicant was disapproved by the
parents. Consequently, it appears that the relationship turned sour.
Later on, the victim and the applicant went and stayed with the
aunt of the applicant, where there are allegations of the alleged
sexual assault.
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
908-BA-317-2026 (CR).doc
5. Given the totality of the circumstances, leading to events
unfolded, prima facie there is a possibility of over implication.
Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intent and
purposes. The age of the applicant is 22 years, as such, further
detention of the applicant may amount to pre-trial detention which
is neither justified nor warranted.
6. As far as the apprehension expressed by the learned A.P.P. in
relation to tampering prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same
can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. I
am, therefore, persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the
applicant.
7. Hence, the order :-
ORDER
I. The bail application is allowed.
II. Applicant - Bhairavnath Vasant Gaikwad be released on bail,
on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty
Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the like
amount, in connection with C.R. No. 806 of 2025 dated 04.10.2025
registered with Mangalvedha Police Station, District Solapur, for the
offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 65(1), 74, 75, 78, 79,
137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 8 and 12
of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
908-BA-317-2026 (CR).doc
the following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in
any manner.
(b) The applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of
Mangalvedha Police Station till conclusion of trial except
attending the dates before the concerned Court.
(c) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and
every date unless exempted by the trial Court.
(d) The applicants shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards
to the Investigating Officer and detailed address, where
they are likely to reside as well as their own phone
numbers and that of their two near relatives.
(e) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to approach the
concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail,
notwithstanding the fact that this Court has granted bail.
III. Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to
the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be
influenced by the same.
IV. Learned counsel appointed to represent Respondent No.3 be
paid professional fees as per Rules.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
Checking your session…