Bombay High Court

VIJAY BABU KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 27 March 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The Court allowed the bail application, finding that the prima facie inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the applicant's clean record warranted bail with conditions.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered an application for regular bail filed by Vasant Anandrao Idhol, accused of offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2) of the Bhartiya Naya Sanhita and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The applicant's counsel argued that the victim's statements were inconsistent – a first statement on 30 March 2025 made no allegation, while a second on 31 March 2025 alleged forcible sexual intercourse – rendering them unreliable, and highlighted the applicant's young age and clean record. The State and Respondent No.2 contended that the later statement, supported by medical evidence, was reliable and that a minor cannot consent to the alleged acts. The Court noted material inconsistencies in the victim's statements and, considering the applicant's lack of prior criminal history, found merit in granting bail with strict conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, surety, and prohibitions on contacting the victim or entering the police jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's statements render them unreliable for the purpose of denying bail
Whether the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act precludes the grant of regular bail
Whether the applicant's age and lack of prior criminal record justify bail despite the allegations

Legislation cited

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO
inconsistent statements
minor victim
criminal procedure
Bhartiya Naya Sanhita
medical evidence

Judgment

                                                                       28-ba3482-25.doc

      vai
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL                     CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3482 OF 2025

Digitally signed
by VASANT
ANANDRAO           Vijay Babu Kamble                                ...Applicant
IDHOL
Date: 2026.03.27
                             V/s.
18:09:12 +0530     State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      ..Respondents


                   Mr.Harideep Singh for the Applicant.

                   Mr.S.S. Ghag, APP for the State – Respondent.

                   Ms.Komal Sinha for Respondent No.2.

                   Mr.Bajrang Desai, PSI, Samta Nagar Police Station is present in
                   Court.
                                 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
                                 DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2026.
                   P.C. :-

                   1.       This Application is for regular bail in connection with

                   Crime No.258 of 2025 registered with Samta Nagar Police

                   Station for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)

                   of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita (BNS) and under Sections 4, 8 and 12

                   of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

                   (POCSO Act).


                                                 1/5
                                                          28-ba3482-25.doc

2.        Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the

statement recorded during the course of investigation by the

victim are totally inconsistent and hence unreliable. He drew

attention of the Court to the statement dated 30 th March, 2025,

which according to him indicates that the victim attributed no

allegations against the present Applicant. On the next day i.e. on

31st March, 2025, she makes a statement alleging that the

incident of forcible       sexual intercourse occurred. The history

given to the Medical Officer speaks for together different version

of the incident claiming that she was given food with

intoxicating    material     and     therefore,   she    was   not   in

consciousness     and had no control over her body following the

consumption of water and food. This according to him is totally

inconsistent with the statement made earlier. It is submitted that

the Applicant is aged 21 years with no criminal history behind

him and since the trial is not likely to commence and concluded

in reasonable period of time, he is entitled for bail.

3.        Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2

opposed the application by submitting that the provisions of


                                   2/5
                                                        28-ba3482-25.doc

POCSO Act has application to the present case. It is their

submission that in the statement recorded by the police, there is

specific   allegation   against   the   present   Applicant   of   he

committing forcible sexual intercourse with her and which is

supported by the medical evidence. It is their submission that

since the victim is minor, in any case it cannot be accepted that

she was the consenting party to acts in question.

4.         If the statement of the victim of sexual       assault is

found reliable and free from doubt, it        can become the sole

ground for conviction of the accused. However, inconsistencies

in the statement of the victim recorded at the different stage of

investigation cannot be completely ignored. Here in this case, the

victim in presence of her father and uncle makes a statement to

the police not attributing anything against the Applicant

however, on the very next day she makes statement about the

Applicant committing sexual intercourse with her. While making

such statement, she does not state that she was made to

consume any food / water which made her unconscious and

thereafter the incident in question has occurred. In the statement


                                  3/5
                                                        28-ba3482-25.doc

before the Medical Officer however, such version is sought to be

given about the occurrence of the incident. There are material

inconsistencies   in the statement of the victim. At this stage,

therefore, this Court finds substance in the contention of the

learned counsel for the Applicant that this is a fit case fo grant of

bail. The Applicant has no criminal history behind him. He is of

young age. His presence can be secured during trial while

imposing appropriate conditions.

5.        At this stage, learned counsel for Respondent No.2

submits that there is apprehension of the victim that the

Applicant on enlargement on bail would pressurize the victim

and witnesses. Learned counsel for the Applicant on instructions

makes a statement that the Applicant will not enter the

jurisdiction of Samta Nagar Police Station till conclusion of trial.

Hence the following order :-

                     ORDER:

a).       The Application stands allowed.

b).       The Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with

Crime No.258 of 2025 registered with Samta Nagar Police


                                4/5
                                                       28-ba3482-25.doc

Station on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

c).       The Applicant not to contact victim or any other

witness of the prosecution directly or indirectly or in any manner

whatsoever.

d).       The Applicant as undertaken, not to enter the

jurisdiction of Samta Nagar Police Station till conclusion of the

trial.

e).       Breach of these conditions would result in cancellation

of the order of grant of bail.

f).       It is clarified that above observations are prima-facie in

nature and would not bind Trial Court / parties during trial.


                                                 (R.M. JOSHI, J.)




                                 5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…