Bombay High Court

DEEPALI VIKAS PHATANGAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Bail is granted to the applicant subject to a bond of Rs.30,000 and standard conditions.

Summary

The applicant, Deepali Vikas Phatangare, applied for regular bail in a case alleging she purchased a child from accused Nos. 1 and 2 and transferred money to accused No. 5, violating sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The prosecution argued that the bank transaction showed her involvement, while the defence contended that the transaction was made by other persons and that no witness statements had been recorded, emphasizing her lack of antecedents and her husband's disability. The court examined the charge‑sheet and bank statements, noting that the transfers were made by Babaji Phatangare and Kiran Gunjal, not the applicant, and that the trial had made no progress. Considering the absence of prior criminal record, the lack of direct evidence linking her to the money transfer, and the risk factors, the judge ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties and conditions to appear before police and not tamper with evidence. The bail order was made subject to the trial court’s independent determination of guilt on merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in offences involving child trafficking under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Juvenile Justice Act.
Whether the bank transaction evidence sufficiently implicates the applicant to deny bail.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 143(2), 143(3), 143(4), 3(5)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 75, 80, 81, 87

Subjects

bail
child trafficking
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Juvenile Justice Act
criminal procedure
bond
evidence tampering

Judgment

3-BA-4150-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4150 OF 2025

Deepali Vikas Phatangare … Applicant/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar along with Mr. Suresh Dhumal, Advocate for
the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
API-Lamkhade, Yerwada Police Station. Present.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026.
P.C. :

1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in

Crime No.449 of 2025 registered with Yerwada Police Station, District

Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 143(3), 143(4)

read with 3(5) of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 75,

80, 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2015.

2. It is prosecution’s case that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had sold their

biological child to the present applicant and the applicant has transferred
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR the amount to accused No.5.
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2026.03.06
11:08:02 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
+0530

Page 1 of 3
3-BA-4150-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

applicant is behind bars for around eight months. The applicant has one

daughter and her husband is 80% disabled. Learned counsel further

submitted that the bank transaction allegedly showing transfer of an

amount to accused No. 5 was carried out in the names of other persons

and not by the applicant. Moreover, the statements of the persons through

whom the said amount was transferred have not been recorded. The

applicant is a lady, she has no antecedents and requested to allow the

application.

4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant purchased

small child from accused Nos.1 and 2 and transferred the amount through

the bank account. There are statements of witnesses contending

involvement of the applicant in crime. If the applicant is released on bail,

she may abscond and prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the

application.

5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and

documents produced on record. The statements of bank accounts

transferring the amount to accused No.5 shows that it is transferred by one

Babaji Phatangare and Kiran Gunjal. The statements of these witnesses

have not been recorded. The bank statements does not show that the

applicant transferred the amount. The applicant is a lady. She has no

antecedents. She is behind bars for around eight months. There is no

Page 2 of 3
3-BA-4150-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

progress in the trial. Considering these facts, Considering these facts, I

pass following order :

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.449 of 2025

registered with Yerwada Police Station, District Pune, on

executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two

sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and

when required.

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to

influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person

concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is

accordingly disposed of.

6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for

the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its

own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations

made in this order.

7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…