INDRAJEET ALIAS AJAY ANANDA KUMBHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                            14-BA-3660-2025 (CR).doc


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3660 OF 2025

                                      Indrajeet Alias Ajay Ananda Kumbhar
                                                     VERSUS
                                         State of Maharashtra And Anr.
                                                         ...
                        Mr.Ganesh M. Khatkale, Advocate for the Applicant.
                        Mr. Balasaheb Ligade (Through V.C.) for Respondent No.2.
                        Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
                                                           …

                                                    CORAM :     SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                                    DATE    :   18th MARCH, 2026.


                        P. C. :

                        1.             The applicant seeks bail in C.R. No. 560 of 2021 Dated

                        20.05.2021 registered with Sangola Police Station, District,Solapur,

                        for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (3), 354 A, 504 and

                        506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8, 10, 12 and 42 of the

                        Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

                        2.             The prosecution case is that, from January 2020 to March

                        2021, the applicant/accused repeatedly committed acts of sexual

                        exploitation against the informant’s minor daughter at their

                        residences. It is alleged that despite knowing the victim was a
           Digitally
           signed by
           SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR
JAMADAR    Date:
           2026.03.25
           17:47:48
           +0530
                        Sajakali Jamadar                   1 of 5
                                                      14-BA-3660-2025 (CR).doc


minor, the accused consistently harassed her, showed her explicit

sexual content on a mobile phone and subjected her to non-

consensual         sexual   intercourse.     Furthermore,   the     accused

intimidated the victim with threats of dire consequences should she

disclose these incidents to anyone. Hence, the report.

3.             Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged

crime. The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on

20.05.2021 and the earlier bail application of the applicant was

rejected. However, the trial is not progressing. Therefore, further

detention of the applicant is not warranted.

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

have opposed the application submitting that there is no change in

circumstances and since this a a successive bail application, this

application deserves to be dismissed.

5.             Having heard the submissions of the respective parties and

upon perusal of the record including the charge-sheet prima facie

indicates that the applicant is a relative of the victim and has

allegedly committed sexual assault against her. Admittedly, this is a

successive bail application. When confronted with any demonstrable



Sajakali Jamadar                    2 of 5
                                                             14-BA-3660-2025 (CR).doc


change in circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant could

not demonstrate any ground, except for delay in trial, in any case

same cannot be considered in isolation.

6.             The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar

and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528] , while

laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious

offences has observed as under:

         “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 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.
         (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
         Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)
         12.    In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have
         been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider
         the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the
         grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected
         and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that
         bail has to be granted then said court will have to given specific
         reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent
         application for bail should be granted.”




Sajakali Jamadar                       3 of 5
                                                         14-BA-3660-2025 (CR).doc


7.             Thus, it casts a further onus upon this Court while

deciding a successive bail application before reconsidering and

substituting the earlier view.

8.             Pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2026 of this Court, the

concerned trial Court has submitted a status report indicating that

the       charge     is   framed    and       the   examination-in-chief      of

PW-1/complainant is recorded. It is further revealed that thereafter

the applicant has preferred an application seeking time for

appointment of a new Counsel and the matter is posted for cross

examination. As such, the delay in trial is caused at the instance of

the applicant while the trial Court is making an endeavour to

conclude the trial at earliest.

9.             Nevertheless, the plea of delay in trial cannot be

considered in isolation for bail as observed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP [(2016) 15 SCC 422].

10.            In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident

that apart from delay in trial, no other fresh grounds are raised by

the applicant. Thus, in absence of any other change in

circumstances and considering the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of X versus State of Rajasthan and Anr.1
1    2024 INSC 909


Sajakali Jamadar                     4 of 5
                                                        14-BA-3660-2025 (CR).doc


has cautioned for granting bail to the accused of serious offences

like that of murder, rape, dacoity etc. once the trial commences,

I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

11.            Resultantly, the application stands rejected.



                                              [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]




Sajakali Jamadar                     5 of 5