Bombay High Court
CHASMU ALIAS SADRE ALAM MOHAMMAD UMAR KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention warranted bail, provided strict conditions to ensure the trial proceeds without prejudice.
Summary
Chasmu alias Sadre Alam Mohammad, the sole accused in a case under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, had been in custody for more than nine years. He applied for bail while the trial was at the stage of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Court, without addressing the merits, considered the length of pre‑trial detention and the need to expedite the trial. It concluded that continued incarceration would be unjust and that bail could be granted subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the trial process. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on bail with a cash bond, surety, reporting requirements, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or leaving the state. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not prejudice the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, despite being charged with serious sexual offences, is entitled to bail after more than nine years of pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the trial stage and the need for expeditious completion justify granting bail with conditions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- sexual offences
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- conditions of bail
Judgment
39 ba 4148 of 2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4148 OF 2025
Chasmu alias Sadre Alam Mohammad
Umar Khan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Farhana Shah, Appointed Advocate a/w. Mr. Omar Shah,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. S.G. Talhar, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Ashwini M. Railwar, Wanvadi Police Station, Pune, present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for the Respondent–State.
2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking bail in connection
with CR No. 438 of 2017 registered with Wanwadi Police Station,
Pune, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the
Digitally
signed by Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO Act”, for
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2026.08.20
20:47:53
short).
+0530
Rajeshri Aher
1 of 5
39 ba 4148 of 2025.odt
3. Present Applicant has been arraigned as an accused, being the
sole accused, under Section 376(2)(i) and (j) of the IPC and Sections
4, 12, and 8 of the POCSO Act. Without dealing with anything on the
merits of the matter and notwithstanding the age of the prosecutrix as
well as the Applicant, after going through the medical record and the
other material placed on record, I am of the clear opinion that, while
releasing the Applicant on bail, who is incarcerated for more than 9
years in custody, appropriate stringent conditions be applied, and the
trial, which is virtually completed and is at the stage of recording of
the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.), be completed as expeditiously as possible and, in any event,
within three months from today.
4. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms.Shah
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of the complainant (prosecutrix). Her professional fees are
directed to be released within a period of two weeks from today. Her
professional fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services
Authority as per rules on production of a server copy of this order and
completion of other compliances in accordance with the decision of
this Court in the case of Sajyoti Nitin Telharkar v. The State of
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 5
39 ba 4148 of 2025.odt
Maharashtra and Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of
the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
5. In my opinion, this would be the best course of action. Without
expressing any opinion on merits, at this stage, since even a prima
facie opinion, would otherwise affect the trial proceedings, which is
almost over.
6. Hence, only on the ground of long incarceration and in the light
of the aforesaid facts, the Applicant, having been in custody for more
than 9 years, he is directed to be released on bail. I am, therefore,
inclined to grant the present Application and release the Applicant on
bail. Accordingly the Application is allowed. The Applicant is,
therefore, released on bail.
7. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R. No. 438 of 2017;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), with one
surety of the like amount;
1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc.Civil Application No.134 of 2024.
Rajeshri Aher
3 of 5
39 ba 4148 of 2025.odt
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Wanawadi Police Station, Pune, once every month on the first
Sunday 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;
(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) Applicant shall not reside in the jurisdiction of the Police
Station where the prosecutrix victim is residing until the
completion of trial;
(ix) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
Rajeshri Aher
4 of 5
39 ba 4148 of 2025.odt
8. 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 herein above in this order.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
5 of 5
Checking your session…