Bombay High Court

HANUMNAT LIMBAJI DUKAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 29 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail is granted as the court finds the prima facie case to be doubtful and no sufficient ground to deny bail.

Summary

Hanumant Limbaji Dukare applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with a case alleging indecent acts on a 13‑year‑old girl in a public place, allegedly committed together with his wife. The prosecution’s case rests on three eye‑witnesses and sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the PCSO Act, 2012, while the applicant contends that the allegations are fabricated due to a long‑standing family feud. The court observed that the eye‑witnesses did not intervene, casting doubt on their credibility, and found the prima facie case to be doubtful. Consequently, the court granted bail with a cash bond of Rs. 15,000 and several conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to bail and does not address the merits of the trial. The trial will proceed on its own merits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 given the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the PCSO Act.
Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.
Whether the testimony of three eye‑witnesses, who did not intervene, is reliable enough to justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 64, 74, 75
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
prima facie case
child sexual offence
eye witness credibility
family feud
Section 483
PCSO Act
anticipatory bail

Judgment

5.BA.3527.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3527 OF 2026

Hanumant Limbaji Dukare .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Prashant Hagare a/w. Ms. Ekta Patil, Advocates for Applicant.
 Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
 Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 PSI – Ratnadeep Bhandare, Baramati City Police Station.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Hagare, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Pawar,

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.170 of 2026 registered with Baramati City Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 64, 74, 75 read with Section 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. In the present crime, it is the prosecution case that on

28.04.2026 in between 06:45 p.m. and 07:05 p.m., Applicant and co-

accused who is his wife called the prosecutrix near a public place,

1 of 4
5.BA.3527.2026.doc

caught hold of her and committed indecent acts. The allegation in the

First Information Report is qua both the Accused persons who are

husband and wife. Contention of Applicant is that they have been

falsely implicated in the present crime. The record prima facie shows

there is a long standing feud between the two families. The

prosecutrix is 13 years old and for the alleged indecent acts to have

been committed in the open public place, it is prima facie unbelievable.

4. That apart, while granting Anticipatory Bail to the co-

accused person who is wife of the present Applicant, this Court has

clearly opined on the basis of the material which is placed before the

Court about clear doubt having been cast upon the alleged incident

and the prosecution case.

5. I have perused the material which is placed on record.

Though it is vehemently argued by Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate for

Respondent No.2 - First Informant that there are three witnesses who

are direct eye witness to the alleged crime in question, it is extremely

unfortunate that they were mere eye witnesses and did not intervene

at all which therefore clearly casts a doubt upon the veracity of their

statements given by such eye witnesses regarding the alleged incident

in question.

6. Prima facie, at the threshold I do not have the slightest doubt

that this is a fabricated case based on the material placed before me.

2 of 4
5.BA.3527.2026.doc

7. Needless to state that the prosecution will prove the

complicity of the Applicant at the trial.

8. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant is released on bail

subject to following conditions:-

(i) Applicant – Hanumant Limbaji Dukare is directed to be

immediately released from prison in connection with

Crime No. 170 of 2026;

(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 surety / sureties of the

like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Baramati City Police Station, once every month on the

first Monday 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;

3 of 4
5.BA.3527.2026.doc

(vi) Applicant shall not influence 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 /

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.

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

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
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.30
10:30:07 +0530

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.