Bombay High Court
AJAJ AHMED SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant because the prosecution’s evidence was deemed insufficient and prima facie inconclusive.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning charges under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The applicant, the father of a five‑year‑old victim, argued that the allegations stemmed from a school counselor’s complaint based on a single answer by the child and that the medical report was inconclusive. The prosecution’s case relied on burn marks on the child’s hands, which the court found could be explained by accidental injuries during Diwali celebrations. The court noted inconsistencies in the child’s statements and the lack of corroborating evidence, deeming the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order would not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite allegations of child sexual abuse under the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts.
- Whether the evidence, including the child’s statements and medico‑legal report, is sufficient to justify continued detention.
- Whether the circumstances of the complaint, including possible marital discord, affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO
- Juvenile Justice Act
- evidentiary insufficiency
- medical report
- prima facie
Judgment
19. BA-3180-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3180 OF 2026
AjajAhmed Shaikh .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Sangharsh Shakya a/w Mr. Shaikh Feroz, Advocates for
Applicant
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
Mr. Faizan Ansari, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Ashok Khade, PSI, Khadak Police Station, Pune City
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shakya a/w Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocates for
Applicant; Ms. Newton, learned APP for State and Mr. Ansari, learned
Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No. 571
of 2025 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune City arising for
the offences punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 (for short "JJ Act").
1 of 6
19. BA-3180-26.odt
3. The dichotomy in the statement of the first witness who is the
Counselor of the school in which Respondent No. 2 - victim is staying
is prima facie evident when her statement appended at page No. 40 of
the Application is perused. School Counselor is the complainant.
Applicant is the father of 6 year old victim.
4. Prosecution case stems from the fact that victim did not attend
the school for 15 days during the first three weeks of November 2025
i.e. Diwali period and when he returned back to the school, there were
certain burn marks on his hands which were questioned by the School
teachers and after which he was referred to the School Counselor. The
School Counselor interacted with Respondent No. 2 victim during
which he had categorically answered that they had gone to their
village during Diwali holidays and while burning the firecrackers, he
had on several occasions accidentally burnt his hands and fingers with
Agarbatti. The School Counselor's statement consists of some
uncomfortable questions which the victim had to answer. Incidentally
in the statement of the Counselor alluded to herein above, every
question that she has asked and the answer given by the victim is
reproduced by her. Prima facie, it is seen that the victim was able to
respond to the questions put to him by the Counselor. Why I say this is
because when the victim's statement is recorded by prosecution officer
in the presence of independent Counselors from Muskan Foundation
2 of 6
19. BA-3180-26.odt
and K.C. Thackeray Vidyaniketan, answer to question No. 6 is given by
an English word which prima facie cannot be to the knowledge of a 5
year old boy.
5. Respondent No. 2 - legal guardian and wife of Applicant and
mother of the victim is duly represented by Mr. Ansari, learned
Advocate. He has drawn my attention to the aforesaid dichotomy
noticed by the Court in the course of his submissions and would in fact
submit that he has instructions to support the case of the Applicant.
Mr. Ansari would submit that the Applicant who is the husband of
Respondent No. 2 runs a small Pan Shop. He would submit that he has
specific instructions from Respondent No. 2 to submit that
notwithstanding the marital discord which prima facie is known to
everybody, there is every possibility that the same may be one of the
reasons for the School Counselor to have filed the complaint. He
would submit that Respondent No. 2 was kept in the dark and not
even informed about filing of the complaint which in normal course
appears to be very strange since Respondent No. 2 is the mother of
the victim child. This prima facie appears to be a very strong reason
and circumstance to consider the Applicant's case for grant of bail.
6. Though this Court is conscious and aware of the fact that the
victim in the present case is a 5 year old boy and the person indicted is
his own father, but the Court has to consider every semblance of the
3 of 6
19. BA-3180-26.odt
material which is prima facie placed before the Court and pass a
reasoned order. Medico-legal examination papers of the victim are
placed before me. I have perused the same. It appears to be
inconclusive though it states that orifice penetration cannot be ruled
out. It is rather the case of the victim himself in his statement that
there is no such issue about penetration or otherwise. The dichotomy
that arises is with regard to inconclusiveness of the medical report qua
the precise complaint which has been filed by the School Counselor on
the basis of one answer given by the victim child to the Counselor.
The circumstances which are stated herein above prima facie persuade
me to consider the Applicant's case for bail. There is absence of
violence or injury which is prima facie evident altogether. The burn
marks in any event are attributable to the injuries sustained during
Diwali festival in November 2025. Credibility of the prosecution's
evidence for them having alleged the incident to span from
01.09.2024 to 18.11.2025 is prima facie unbelievable and is not made
out on the basis of the material placed before this Court. If it is
essentially the prosecution case that the victim was abused, then it
could be from the age of 3 & 1/2 year onwards That case is also not
made out. In that view of the matter and for the prima facie reasons
stated herein above, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant.
7. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
4 of 6
19. BA-3180-26.odt
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R. No. 571 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Khadak Police Station, Pune City once every month on
the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m.;
(iv) 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 revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
5 of 6
19. BA-3180-26.odt
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
8. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.29
15:01:59 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…