Bombay High Court
SUBHASH BHIMRAO PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the accused with specified conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Subhash Bhimrao Pawar, who was charged with offences under IPC Sections 363, 376, 368 read with Section 34 and POCSO Act Sections 4, 5(l) and 5(n). The prosecution alleged that the 14‑year‑old prosecutrix, who had been living with the applicant, was repeatedly outraged in her modesty on a single date, but the court noted inconsistencies in her statements and the delayed medical evidence. The applicant had been in custody for over six and a half years without trial commencement, which the court deemed a substantial factor favoring bail. The judge held that the prosecution must prove complicity at trial and that the applicant’s right to liberty outweighed the unproven allegations at this stage. Consequently, bail was granted with a personal bond of Rs.15,000 and several conditions, including regular reporting to the investigating officer and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious sexual offences against a minor under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- Whether the delay of more than six years in trial commencement warrants bail.
- Whether the medical evidence obtained after an eleven‑month gap is admissible for bail consideration.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 368, 376
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 5(l), 5(n)
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- child protection
- IPC
- POCSO
- delay in trial
- criminal procedure
- court conditions
Judgment
38. BA-3569-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3569 OF 2026
Subhash Bhimrao Pawar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shreyas Purushottam Barsawade a/w Mr. Ashish Limbaji
Rathod, Advocates for Applicant
Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for State
Mr. Chinmay Godse, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Avinash Gaikwad, PSI, Daund Police Station, Pune.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Barsawade, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for State and Mr. Godse, learned Advocate
(appointed) for Respondent No. 2.
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. 122/2019 registered
with Daund Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
363, 376, 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short "IPC") and under Sections 4, 5(l),(n) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
1 of 6
38. BA-3569-26.odt
3. Applicant is 31 years old whereas the prosecutrix at the time
when she left along with the Applicant was 14 years 9 months old and
she turned 15 when she was with the Applicant.
4. The case of the prosecution is that according to the first
informant - prosecutrix's own statement, which is recorded, she states
that her father committed cruelty on her due to which she found
solace in the Applicant and his wife who were their immediate
neighbors and known to her and her family. She had befriended the
Applicant and his wife when they were neighbors for quite some time
when they had come over for sugar cane cutting work in the previous
year. When the prosecutrix found that she could not take the abuses
and cruelty and excesses committed by her own father on her, she left
along with the Applicant and his wife and started living with them in
their house in another village. Along with the Applicant and his wife,
the prosecutrix also started working in a brick kiln for some time. This
went on for almost six months after which the present complaint was
lodged.
5. Present FIR was lodged on 28.02.2019. The alleged occurrence
of the incidents as stated in the FIR is of one singular date, that is on
20.02.2019 where in a singular line, the first informant - prosecutrix
has stated that the Applicant had all through out the tenure while she
residing with him, repeatedly outraged her modesty. The statement of
2 of 6
38. BA-3569-26.odt
the prosecutrix prima facie does not match with the contents of the
FIR which has been noted by the prosecution. Since alleged occurrence
of an incident of only 20.02.2019 has been alleged, the statement of
the prosecutrix is in fact contradictory. The statement of the
prosecutrix does not stop here. She further alleges that as and when
the repeated incidents occurred, she had also brought it to the notice
of the wife of the Applicant but she neglected and ignored the same.
The Applicant has been arrested after a hiatus of 11 months thereafter.
The prosecutrix herself has presented 11 months thereafter for the
purpose of recording her statement.
6. Though the learned APP and learned Advocate (appointed) for
Respondent No. 2\, would vehemently argue that the medical
examination of the prosecutrix conducted about the seizure of clothes
which she had worn 11 months prior in point of time prima facie
shows the complicity of the Applicant and the said medical report
clearly indicts the alleged incidents having taken place, however, in
view of the abnormal length of time of conduct of the said medical
examination, I am not inclined to accept the same at the threshold.
7. Needless to state that complicity of the Applicant in the crime
on the basis of any material evidence that the prosecution has
gathered shall be proved at trial. The Applicant has made out a case
for grant of bail. He is in incarceration for the past more than 6 years 7
3 of 6
38. BA-3569-26.odt
months pending trial. Trial has not commenced and all this itself is a
good ground for this Court to consider for grant of bail.
8. In view of the above discussion, Applicant is released on bail on
the following terms and conditions:-
9. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with C.R. No. 122/2019;
(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
Daund Police Station, 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
4 of 6
38. BA-3569-26.odt
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(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.
10. 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.
11. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Godse,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of Respondent No. 2. His 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.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024
5 of 6
38. BA-3569-26.odt
12. 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:
2026.09.29
15:12:12
+0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…