Bombay High Court
RAJU GANPAT KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused with specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Raju Ganpat Kamble, accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor between September 2024 and June 2025, offences charged under Sections 65(1) and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution relied on the victim’s recorded statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the fact that the alleged incidents occurred in the house of the victim’s paternal aunt, who was in a live‑in relationship with the accused, while the defence highlighted the absence of recent medical injuries, lack of hymen examination findings, and the non‑recording of the aunt’s statement, arguing a possibility of false implication. The court noted the seriousness of the charges but also observed that the accused had no prior criminal record, was unlikely to flee, and that the trial would not be prolonged unduly. It further found that the missing statement of the aunt raised a legitimate doubt, and that the risk of the accused influencing the victim could be mitigated by strict conditions. Consequently, the court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs.15,000, a surety of the same amount, and imposed conditions prohibiting contact with the prosecutrix or witnesses and restricting the accused from entering the jurisdiction of the Shanti Nagar Police Station until trial conclusion.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving serious sexual offences against a minor under the BNS and POCSO statutes.
- Whether the absence of recent medical injuries and the non‑recording of a key witness’s statement create reasonable doubt sufficient to justify bail.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing the victim, warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(1), 65(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- child protection
- POCSO
- BNS
- medical evidence
- false implication
- flight risk
- criminal procedure
Judgment
10-BA-4054-2025.DOC
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4054 OF 2025
Raju Ganpat Kamble …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, with Keral Mehta, Vinayak Patil, Ketki
Dandekar, i/by Vinod Vasant Utekar, for the Applicant.
Mr. A.S.Gawai, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Rajesh Kisan Shinde, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sachin Desai, PSI attached to Shanti Ngar Police Station,
Thane, present.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 10th APRIL, 2026.
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No.0694
of 2025 registered with Shanti Nagar Police Station, Thane City for
the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 351(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(‘POCSO Act’)
2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the Applicant,
who is said to have been in live-in relationship with the paternal
aunt of the Victim, sexually abused her since September 2024 till
June 2025. After the occurrence of the last incident, the Victim, the
Page 1 of 4
th
10 April, 2026.
10-BA-4054-2025.DOC
minor girl informed the same to her grand-mother, who in turn
told the same to the mother of the Victim. The Informant lodged
the report against the Applicant. The Victim was sent for medical
examination. Her statements were recorded under Sections 161 as
well as 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’). On
conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
has no criminal history behind him. It is his further submission that
there is no medical evidence in order to accept the allegation with
regard to the occurrence of multiple instances of Victim subjected
to forcible sexual intercourse. It is his submission that even
accepting the fact that there could be no recent injuries found,
there is no clinical finding recorded with regard to the position of
the hymen. It is his submission that in that circumstances, the
medical evidence is said to have been not supporting the case of
the prosecution. It is his submission that there is no justification for
not recording the statement of the paternal aunt of the Victim girl,
who is said to have been in live-in relationship with the present
Applicant. It is his submission that as the incident in question has
occurred in her house, it was necessary to record her statement.
This, according to him, creates a doubt about the case of the
prosecution and possibility of false implication of the Applicant is
not ruled out.
4. The learned APP and the learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2 oppose the Application firstly, by citing seriousness of the
crime. Secondly, it is submitted that there are consistent statements
of Victim girl recorded before the Police as well as before the
Page 2 of 4
th
10 April, 2026.
10-BA-4054-2025.DOC
Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. With regard to the
medical evidence, it is the submission of the learned APP that since
it is mentioned that there is no recent injury on the private parts of
the Victim, it should be taken as there are old injuries. Learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2 apprehends that in case, the
Applicant is released on bail, he would pressurize the Victim.
5. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the
Applicant, on instructions, makes a statement that the Applicant
would not enter jurisdiction of Shanti Nagar Police Station till
conclusion of the trial.
6. No doubt, in case, there is cogent evidence of the Victim, it
can become sole basis of conviction of the Accused. However, at
the same time, the Courts are not expected to ignore the other
relevant material on record. Even accepting the position that in
every case, it is not possible that there would be tear to the hymen
in case of sexual assault, herein in this case, as per the case of the
prosecution, the Victim has been subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse on number of occasions since September 2024 till June
2025, in such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that no injuries
would be seen on the genitals of the Victim.
7. Apart from this, there is no explanation occurring on the
face of it for non-recording of the statement of the paternal aunt of
the Victim in whose house, the incident is allegedly to have taken
place. Having regard to the same, this Court finds no reason to
discard the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that
this could be a case of false implication. In any case, the Applicant
has no criminal history and is not likely to flee from justice. The
Page 3 of 4
th
10 April, 2026.
10-BA-4054-2025.DOC
trial is not likely to get over within reasonable time. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application stands allowed in connection with
Crime No.0694 of 2025 registered with Shanti Nagar Police
Station, Thane City;
(ii) The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R.
Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(iii) The Applicant not to contact the Prosecutrix or any
witness in this Crime in any manner whatsoever;
(iv) The Applicant not to enter jurisdiction of Shanti Nagar
Police Station, Thane City till conclusion of the trial.
(v) The Applicant to attend all the dates of hearing before
the Trial Court except exempted by a specific order by the
Trial Court;
8. The Bail Application stands disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.04.10
18:26:30
+0530
Page 4 of 4
th
10 April, 2026.
Checking your session…