Bombay High Court
MINAL OMKAR SAKPALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed by Minal Omkar Sakpal, a 30‑year‑old mother of three minor children, who was arrested in connection with a case alleging the sale of her 40‑day‑old daughter. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and her husband attempted to sell the child to a purchaser through intermediaries, while the applicant contended that she had approached the police herself to report the crime. The court noted that the applicant’s affidavit was credible, that other accused had already been released on bail, and that the prosecution’s case appeared inconsistent, especially given the applicant’s immediate reporting to the police. Considering the applicant’s familial responsibilities and the lack of clear evidence linking her directly to the alleged offence, the judge was inclined to grant bail. Bail was ordered on cash and surety with a series of conditions, including reporting to the investigating officer and not influencing witnesses. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and reserved judgment on the merits of the case for the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case involving alleged child trafficking.
- Whether the applicant’s role in the alleged sale of her child is sufficiently established to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances (mother of three minors) warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 143(2), 143(3), 143(4), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 — s. 75, 80, 81, 87
Subjects
- bail
- child trafficking
- juvenile justice
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- mother
- minor children
- court discretion
Judgment
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3267 OF 2026
Minal Omkar Sakpal .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
.................…
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Ms. Savvy Kolhekar and Ms. Juhi Kadu,
Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.449 of 2025
registered with Yerwada Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 143(2), 143(3), 143(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Sections 75, 80, 81, 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection) Act, 2015.
3. Applicant seeks bail. She is a 30 year old mother of three
minor children out of whom two are infact as on date been taken care
of by two different child care Institutions. One of the older daughter of
1 of 6
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
Applicant who is 16 years old is residing with her grandmother.
Applicant was directed to file the Affidavit by giving instruction to her
Advocate on the previous date with regard to status of Applicant’s
children.
4. Mr. Vagal has taken instructions from Applicant and has filed
a comprehensive and detailed Affidavit dated 31.08.2026 and I have
gone through the same. Prima facie what Mr. Vagal has stated in the
said Affidavit is believable and there is no reason whatsoever to
disbelieve the same. On the issue of merits, it is prima facie seen that
there are total six accused persons in the present crime. The Applicant
and her husband are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the crime.
The Applicant is Accused No.2.
5. According to the prosecution case, which can be seen prima
facie from the First Information Report stated, appended at page No.8
dated 04.07.2025, the Applicant herself alongwith her husband,
Accused Nos.1 and 3 visited the police station at 1:00 a.m. on the
intervening night between 03.07.2025 and 04.07.2025 to lodge a
complaint regarding the role of Accused Nos.4 and 5 in sale of
Applicant’s 40 day old daughter to Accused No.6 the Purchaser.
6. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are husband and wife. Accused No.6 is
the purchaser of the said minor infant child. Accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6
are all been released on bail. The Applicant is incarcerated in prison
2 of 6
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
since 04.07.2025 for 1 year and 1 month. According to the Applicant
and as argued by Mr. Vagal, it is seen that the prosecution story on the
face of record is disbelievable, primarily because if the Applicant was
indeed involved in the sale of her own child, she would not have
approached the Police Station in the first instance. The prosecution
story is that though the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have received Rs. 3.5
Lakhs from the purchaser through the agents, namely Accused Nos.4
and 5. The statements which are recorded however prima facie show
that the concerned agents,Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the real
perpetrators of the crime as they have received a lion's share of the
money given by Accused No.6.
7. Statements of all Accused persons have also been recorded
by the prosecution. Indictment of the Applicant is solely on the basis
that she alongwith her husband attempted to sell her own 40 day old
girl child to Accused No.6 through Accused Nos.4 and 5. Save and
except this indictment as can be seen in the prosecution case, there is
no specific role or material on record to prima facie show and attribute
role of the Applicant. Complaint is lodged by the Police Constable
himself. Applicant being the mother has otherwise accompanied her
husband and also another Accused namely Accused No.3 to the police
station to lodge her complaint and all 3 have been detained. All other
Accused have been released on bail. The Applicant before me has 3
minor children to provide care and support. Accused No.1 being the
3 of 6
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
husband is also incarcerated alongwith her. The said 40 day old girl
child of the Applicant was infact reunited by the Police Authorities on
04.07.2025, which is prima facie evident from the statement of the
Complainant, who is a Police Constable, but it is shocking and equally
surprising that immediately thereafter the child and the mother were
separated and the Applicant was arrested whereas the child was sent
to a child care home in Pune.
8. Mr. Vagal has provided all details with regard to the status of
the 3 minor children of the Applicant. Considering the aforesaid facts,
which prima facie are to some extent convoluted and suspicious with
regard to the facts and the specific role of the Applicant as laid out by
the prosecution, in view of the Applicant being a mother to 3 minor
children and above observations, I am inclined to grant the Applicant's
Application for bail. She is granted bail subject to following
conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 449 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on cash bail of Rs.
5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) with one or more
surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant, is ordered to be released on cash bail of
Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) and shall furnish
4 of 6
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
one or two sureties of the like amount within a period
of one month from her date of release;
(iv) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station as and when called for;
(v) 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 she does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(viii)Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of her current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(ix) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
9. 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. The trial shall be adjudicated on
5 of 6
14.BA.3267.2026.doc
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.01
10:48:00 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…