Bombay High Court
ATUL BALASO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Bail is denied because prima facie evidence establishes the accused’s guilt and no material change in circumstances warrants relief.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Atul Balaso More, accused of offences under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 377 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual assault of a six‑year‑old girl who addressed him as “Atul Nana”. The applicant argued that the trial had been pending for over three years, that there was no direct evidence, and that the delay in filing the FIR indicated false implication. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s Section 164 statement, corroborative statements of neighbours, a shopkeeper, and a medico‑legal report indicating injury. The Court examined the prima facie material, noting the gravity of the offence, the trust relationship, and the risk of witness tampering, and found no material change in circumstances since the earlier denied bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the prosecution’s case is sufficiently substantiated to deny bail.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail to an accused in a POCSO case involving a minor when prima facie evidence exists.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and alleged delay in reporting constitute a ground for bail.
- Whether there is a risk of witness tampering or influence given the accused's proximity to the victim.
- Whether the applicant has demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the earlier bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 377
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 29, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- prima facie evidence
- witness tampering
- undertrial detention
- trust relationship
- speedy trial
Judgment
57.BA-3403-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3403 OF 2026
Atul Balaso More .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chaitanya Mulawar, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Sangita Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Tithi Raut, Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for
Respondent No.2.
Mr. B.M. Mohite, Walchandnagar Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mulawar, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Raut, learned
Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for Respondent No.2.
2. Bail Application is filed by Applicant under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Regular Bail in
connection with C.R. No.322 of 2023 registered with Walchandnagar
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j),
376(2)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”)
read with Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).
1 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
3. Applicant before me is the sole accused and he is in
incarceration since 29.05.2023 i.e. 3 years, 3 months and 25 days.
Earlier Bail Application No.2477 of 2024 filed by Applicant was
disposed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after charge is framed
by this Court by order dated 21.01.2025 (Corum: Shri. Nitin W.
Sambre J.) appended at Exhibit - ‘B’ at page No.105 of the Application.
4. Facts of the prosecution case are extremely narrow. Age of
Applicant at the time of filing of FIR was 40 years and that of the
victim was 6 years. First Informant is the mother of the victim.
Applicant is the neighbour of First Informant who is known to family
of First Informant since many years. Prosecution case is that on
29.05.2023 at 09:00 am when Complainant was washing clothes
outside her house and other family members had gone to work, victim
called neighbor’s daughter Ms. Swara to play and bolted the door from
inside. When Complainant asked her to open the door and slapped her
once by saying, “what kind of game are you playing by closing the
door of the house from inside?”. The victim answered that she took off
Ms. Swara’s pants and touched her thigh to check whether she was
hurt. So Complainant asked victim who taught you that, and she
answered Atul Nana i.e. present Applicant. Victim further told
Complainant that when Complainant is not at home, Atul Nana called
victim to his house and outraged her modesty by doing dirty things.
2 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
Therefore, Complainant called her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-
law and narrated them all above facts. Hence, on 29.05.2023,
Complainant filed FIR No.322 of 2023 against Applicant for offences
under IPC and POCSO Act.
5. Mr. Mulawar, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that
Applicant has undergone a substantial period of 3 years, 3 months and
25 days pending trial. He would submit that Special Case No. 376 of
2025 is still pending for framing of charges since the one and half
years. He would submit that there was dispute between the
Complainant and Applicant’s family. He would contend that Applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present crime owing to strained
family relations and there is an inordinate unexplained delay in
reporting the crime as FIR reveals that alleged incident took place
much earlier. He would submit that FIR does not mention specific date
and time of incident, which clearly shows that on the basis of hearsay,
fabricated case is filed against Applicant. He would submit that
allegations in the crime are such that medical examination would be
crucial to corroborate the prosecution case. He would submit that
there is neither single eye witness or independent witness who has
seen Applicant committing the alleged offence. He would submit that
there is no direct evidence about forceful physical relation by
Applicant. Hence, there is no prima facie material on record to
3 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
corroborate the guilt of Applicant which entitles the Applicant for
grant of bail.
6. Ms. Phad, learned APP for State has vehemently opposed the
Bail Application. She has drawn my attention to the order dated
13.02.2026 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge while rejecting the 2 nd Bail
Application of the Applicant and would submit that the grounds for
bail taken up by Applicant in the present Application have already
been dealt with by this Court in that order and as such there is no
change in circumstances for maintaining the present Application for
grant of bail. She has drawn my attention to the statement of the
victim at page No.43 of the Application and her Section 164 statement
to submit that the same completely corroborates with the prosecution
case. She would submit that prosecution is desirous of examining 23
prosecution witnesses in trial and the same will be completed
expeditiously which would eventually prove the guilt of Applicant as
there is sufficient prima facie material on record to establish his guilt.
She would submit that offence committed by Applicant is extremely
serious and its gravity needs to be taken into consideration by the
Court. She would submit that enlarging the Applicant on bail may lead
to he tampering with evidence as also influencing the witnesses as
Applicant resides in the same vicinity as that of First Informant which
4 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
would create a hurdle in the trial. Hence she has urged the Court to
reject the Bail Application.
7. Ms. Raut, learned appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2
would support the arguments advanced by Ms. Phad, learned APP and
additionally would submit that the offence committed by Applicant is
extremely serious in nature and in the peculiar facts of the present
case wherein the victim used to look upto Applicant as uncle or father
figure by addressing him as “Atul Nana”, the gravity of offence is
amplified owing to the trust reposed by First Informant’s family as also
by the victim in him and he having breached the trust. She would
submit that delay in reporting matters arising out of POCSO Act is not
fatal to the prosecution case as the victim being a 6 year old child was
scared to disclose the said incident to anyone and her abnormal
behaviour later noticed by her mother revealed the alleged incident.
She would submit that Medico-legal Examination Report also
corroborates the prosecution case and that it is a matter of trial.
However on overall consideration of the material on record, she would
submit that complicity of Applicant in the present crime is prima facie
established and hence she would urge the Court to reject the Bail
Application.
8. I have heard Mr. Mulawar, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms.
Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Raut, learned
5 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
Advocate appointed through Legal Aid for Respondent No.2 and with
their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made
by them have received due consideration.
9. In the present case what is prima facie seen is the gravity of the
offence vis-a-vis the affinity and access of Applicant to the victim.
From the statements of witnesses on record it is prima facie seen that
the victim used to practically visit the house of Applicant often as he
was her uncle and was known to family. He was residing next-door,
was a neighbour with family-like relations with them due to which
they reposed full trust in him. Perusal of Section 161 statement and
Section 164 statement of the First Informant as also the victim reveal
serious allegation against the Applicant which are prima facie found to
be consistent in the statements which are recorded. There is nothing
placed on record for me to disbelieve those statements at this prima
facie stage which is the substantial material and the said statements
are consistent.
10. It is seen that prima facie, statement of shopkeeper – Vishal
Narute appended at page No.54 of application corroborates the
prosecution case and shows that victim used to visit his shop often to
buy tobacco, milk, chocolates, etc. for Applicant. It is seen that victim
acknowledged the fact that she used to come to his shop on request of
Applicant. Furthermore, it is seen that statement of neighbour – Dipak
6 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
More appended at page No.55 of application shows that Dipak resides
on the way to shop of Vishal Narute and he has seen victim entering
house of Applicant carrying milk bag, tobacco packets, etc. and victim
has also acknowledged the same thing.
11. On perusal of Medico-legal Examination report dated
29.05.2023 appended at page No.58 of application it is seen that
examining doctor has given positive report that victim suffered pain
due to alleged assault. It is seen that said report corroborates the
prosecution case which is crucial evidence against Applicant.
12. There is not even a single piece of prima facie material evidence
placed on record to show that family relationship between Applicant’s
family and that of the First Informant’s family were strained which is
the defence taken by Applicant’s Advocate. Hence the defence of false
implication owing to strained family relations adopted by Applicant
cannot be accepted by me at this juncture in absence of any
corroborative material though it is merely argued by Mr. Mulawar.
13. It is trite law that successive Bail Application is permissible only
in the event if there is a material change in circumstances which is the
sine qua non for filing subsequent Bail Application. A material change
in circumstances settled by law is a change in the facts, situation or
law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the
7 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
earlier finding has become obsolete. However as can be seen from the
present case apart from the period of incarceration suffered by the
Applicant, there is no change in circumstance placed on record which
would impel me to otherwise take a divergent view from the view
taken by the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the earlier Bail
Application filed by the Applicant upon considering the merits of the
matter.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs. CBI
through its Director1 has observed that there is no absolute and
unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court
and when it should not and that it all depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute
rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must
necessarily be granted.
15. In cases of sexual offences, medical evidence, if available, is of
vital importance however even if such evidence is not available or
cannot be made available, it is held in a plethora of judgements that
Courts should not discard the case and can rely upon the testimony of
the victim alone. In this regard reference is made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey &
1 (2007) 1 SCC 70
8 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
Anr.2 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that rape is a crime
and not a medical condition and that it is a legal term and not a
diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. In any
event, Section 29 of the POCSO Act casts reverse burden of proof on
the Accused to prove his innocence. Though the said presumption is
rebuttable, at this prima facie stage there is absolutely nothing placed
before me or emanating from the record to discard the prosecution
case.
16. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Pradum Singh Vs. State
of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Ors. 3 has while referring to
various judgments passed by the Supreme Court discussed the facet of
solitary evidence of prosecutrix in cases of sexual assault. The relevant
paragraph Nos.18 to 21 are reproduced below:-
“18. The Apex Court in re; State of H.P. Vs. Asha Ram, (2005) 13
SCC 766, has observed in para-5, which reads as under:-
"5. We record our displeasure and dismay, the way the
High Court dealt casually with an offence so grave, as in
the case at hand, overlooking the alarming and shocking
increase of sexual assault on minor girls. The High Court
was swayed by the sheer insensitivity, totally oblivious of
the growing menace of sexual violence against minors
much less by the father. The High Court also totally
overlooked the prosecution evidence, which inspired
confidence and merited acceptance. It is now a well-
settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on
the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are
compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The
evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an
injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual
2 (1992) 3 SCC 204
3 2024:AHC-LKO:41454
9 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
assault is vital, unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the
courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony
of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused
where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to
be reliable. It is also a well-settled principle of law that
corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law
but a guidance of prudence under the given
circumstances. The evidence of the prosecutrix is more
reliable than that of an injured witness. Even minor
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the
statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."
19. The Apex Court in re; Ganesan Vs. State represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573, while considering the
judgments of Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191, State of
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC
550, State of U.P. Vs. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594, State of Punjab
v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Orissa v. Thakara
Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 and Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 has observed that to hold an
accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same
inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and should be of sterling quality.
20. In the case of Pappu (supra), the Apex Court has held that
even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy
virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a
ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to
be established that there was consent by her for that particular
occasion and that consent should be free consent.
21. The Apex Court in re; Phool Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74, has considered the judgment of
Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, wherein
the Apex Court has observed that the testimony of the victim is
vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate
looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should
find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual
assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable.”
17. Attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Bhagwan Singh Vs. Dilip Kumar4 wherein the Supreme Court
4 (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1059
10 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
has discussed and summarized the principles for granting bail. The
relevant paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 19 are reproduced herein under:-
“Discussion and findings
11. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily
means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of
bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt
with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot
be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the
application for grant of bail. However, it can be noted that:
11.1. While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors
such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if
the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.
11.2. Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter
of grant of bail.
11.3. While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the
Court in support of the charge.
11.4. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it
is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an
order of bail.
12. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]
where the parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of
bail by the courts have been explained in the following words :
(SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
11 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other circumstances,
the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.
13. …..
14. …..
15. …..
16. …..
17. …..
18. …..
19. Similar is the opinion of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v.Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] which has held as
under : (SCC p. 499, para 9)
“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order [Ashish
Chatterjee v.State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order
dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] is clearly unsustainable. It is trite
that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order
[Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010,
order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance
with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that,
among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.”
12 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
17.1. In the above matter the Supreme Court relying on the gravity of
allegations levelled by victim in the FIR which were corroborated by
the Section 164 statement of victim, cancelled the bail granted to the
Accused therein by the High Court.
18. Similar is the present case where allegations are so serious that
it shocks the conscience of the Court. Applicant and victim were
neighbours. Their neighbourly relations were spoken highly even by
First Informant - mother of victim due to the trust established between
their families as seen from First Informant’s statement. Victim is
merely 6 years old, whereas Applicant is 40 years old. Such relations
led to the victim spending her time in the Applicant’s household. The
trust shown by her family in the Applicant was about setting an
example for neighbourly brotherhood relations in today’s times. Sadly,
the Applicant’s behaviour eroded the trust between the families.
19. Prima facie there is material on record to show that Applicant
committed the offence as per prosecution case. Prosecution case is that
Applicant who was a fatherly figure to victim committed the assault
which in the opinion of this Court would have scarred the tender mind
of the victim which is clearly exhibited by her behaviour as stated by
the First Informant - mother. Rather such an act is an act against the
Society at large as one of the principal object of the POCSO Act is to
13 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
ensure that the tender age of the child is not abused and their
childhood is protected against exploitation.
20. Reference is made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Subhan Ali Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. 5 wherein in an
identical case, the Delhi High Court refused bail to the Applicant
therein while observing as follows:-
“9. This case reflects the profound trauma suffered by the
victim, a minor, at the hands of a person she trusted - her
neighbour, in whose house she had gone to play, and whom she
addressed as chacha. It is a stark reminder of an unfortunate
reality frequently observed by courts, where acts of sexual
assault against children are often committed by individuals who
occupy positions of trust or confidence in the child's life. Such
relationships of familiarity and trust not only provide
perpetrators access to the child but also magnify the betrayal
and lasting impact of the crime. The victim in this case, despite
her young age, demonstrated commendable courage by
confiding in her school teacher, as she was unable to bear the
trauma caused by the violation of her body and dignity. The
Principal and teacher, instead of silencing or ignoring the child's
plight, acted responsibly and informed the parents, which led to
the registration of the present FIR. Their actions serve as a
commendable example of the importance of supporting victims
in such situations.
10. It is the duty of the Courts to recognize the broader
implications of such heinous acts. One must always remember
that crimes of sexual assault against minors are not just
violations of their physical integrity but also attacks on their
innocence and sense of safety, and often leave permanent
psychological scars. When such offences are committed by
individuals the victim trusts, the impact is even more severe,
both for the victim and society at large. Therefore, in cases like
the present, the Courts must send a strong and clear message,
through its orders and judgments, that such acts will not be
condoned and that the justice system will act decisively to
protect the most vulnerable members of society.”
(emphasis supplied)
5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 297
14 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
21. In the case of Eera Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)6 the Supreme Court
has made observations regarding the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of POCSO Act in paragraph No.20 which reads as under:-
“20. The purpose of referring to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons and the Preamble of the POCSO Act is to appreciate
that the very purpose of bringing a legislation of the present
nature is to protect the children from the sexual assault,
harassment and exploitation, and to secure the best interest of
the child. On an avid and diligent discernment of the Preamble,
it is manifest that it recognizes the necessity of the right to
privacy and confidentiality of a child to be protected and
respected by every person by all means and through all stages of
a judicial process involving the child. Best interest and well-
being are regarded as being of paramount importance at every
stage to ensure the healthy physical, emotional, intellectual and
social development of the child. There is also a stipulation that
sexual exploitation and sexual abuse are heinous offences and
need to be effectively addressed. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons provides regard being had to the constitutional
mandate, to direct its policy towards securing that the tender
age of children is not abused and their childhood is protected
against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a
healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. There
is also a mention which is quite significant that interest of the
child, both as a victim as well as a witness, needs to be
protected. The stress is on providing child friendly procedure.
Dignity of the child has been laid immense emphasis in the
scheme of legislation. Protection and interest occupy the seminal
place in the text of the POCSO Act.”
22. Considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for
grant of bail and the citations as delineated herein above vis-a-vis the
gravity of the offence and more particularly the nexus between the
parties, no case for grant of bail is made out by the Applicant.
23. Though this Court has in numerous cases taken cognizance of
the fundamental right to speedy trial and personal liberty granted to
6(2017) 15 SCC 133
15 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
undertrial – accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
view of the long incarceration suffered by the undertrial – accused and
released them on bail owing to no possibility of completion of trial in
the near foreseeable future, the case at hand carves out an exception
in my opinion. The trust and faith reposed in the Applicant is
completely eroded and shattered by him. The allegations of offence in
the present case is of such a serious nature that grant of bail would
amount to sending a wrong message or signal to the Society at large as
the sanctity of pure and innocent relationship as delineated is
decimated by the Applicant before me by sexually assaulting the victim
aged 6 years old who adored him and called him “Atul Nana” which
literally means a father figure.
24. In view of my above prima facie observations, no case for grant
of bail is made out by the Applicant.
25. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
for the purpose of adjudication of the Bail Application and the trial
shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on
its own merits being uninfluenced by any of the prima facie
observations made herein above in this order.
26. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Raut,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
16 of 17
57.BA-3403-26.odt
cause of Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix). Her fees 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.7 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1)
of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
27. Bail Application is dismissed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.28
12:21:06 +0530
7 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of
2024
17 of 17
Checking your session…