DATTATRAYA DIGAMBARRAO CHIMANSHETTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:19935
                                                      1                          416 – 2026


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    BAIL APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2026

             Dattatraya S/o Digambarrao Chimanshette,
             Age : 53 years, Occu : Agril.,
             R/o Ujed, Tq. Shirur – Anantpal,
             Dist. Latur                                                   …       Applicant

                  VERSUS

             The State of Maharashtra,
             Through Police Station,
             Shirur – Anantpal,
             Tq. Shirur – Anantpal, Dist. Latur                            …       Respondent

                                                   AND
                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1272 OF 2026 IN BA/416/2025
                            (X.Y.Z. V. The State of Maharashtra and another)

                                                      …
                             Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.D. Gunale (416/2026)
                               A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar
                                  None present for applicant in 1272/2026

                                     CORAM                 : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE                  : 30.04.2026


             PER COURT :

                     Heard both sides.

             2.      The applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime
             No.240 of 2025, registered with Shiruranantpal Police Station, Dist. Latur for the
             offences punishable under Section 64(1), 64(2)(i) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
             2023, under section 4, 6 of POCSO Act.

             3.      It is reported to the Police by mother of the victim that victim was 9 years
             girl. She related an incident which occurred on 02.11.2025 at about 01.30 to
             02.30 pm in the room located above the medical shop run by the applicant. The
             informant had sent the victim for bringing the tablets from the medical shop on the
             relevant date and after returning from the shop, informant found excess amount

                                                                                               1/4
                                           2                        416 – 2026


with the daughter. On further enquiry, she learnt that the victim was taken to the
upper storied room and penetrative assault was committed by the applicant over
the victim. The victim felt pain but she was given Rs.15/- for not disclosing the
incident to anybody. The informant checked the private part of the victim.
Thereafter, the law was set into motion.

4.        In pursuance of the complaint, applicant was arrested on 06.11.2025. The
charge-sheet is filed on 16.12.2025. Application was filed before the Special
Court post chargesheet which was rejected. Hence, the applicant is before this
Court, seeking regular bail.

5.         Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely
implicated in the offence.       The informant had tendency to blackmail the
respectable persons of the society from the vicinity. To extract money, the false
allegations are made against the applicant. The scene of the crime does not
reveal any objectionable thing to indicate commission of any offence.            The
medico-legal certificate of the victim does not support the prosecution case. No
injuries were found on the person of the victim. It is vehemently contended that
applicant is suffering from many ailments and he was unable to perform any
sexual act.      He is under constant medication at the relevant time and the
documents were produced to indicate his physical condition. My attention is
adverted to the representation made by people from the vicinity against the
informant.

6.        Learned APP submits that there is cogent incriminating material available
against the applicant. The medico-legal certificate, in unequivocal terms, would
suggest penetrative sexual assault. The statement of the informant and the victim
recorded under section 183 are consistent. Admittedly, the age of the victim at the
relevant time was of 9 years. Hence, applicant has committed offence under
section 4(2) of POCSO Act, inviting major punishment. The representation which
is sought to be relief upon, is afterthought and would not bely the prosecution
theory.

7.        The victim was knowing the applicant who is being referred as ‘Datta
Mama’. It reveals from the papers of investigation that the informant and the


                                                                                 2/4
                                         3                           416 – 2026


victim were resident of adjoining premises where the medical shop is being run by
the applicant. At the relevant time, the age of the victim was 9 years, which is not
disputed by the applicant. The incident occurred on 02.11.2025 between 01.30 to
02.10pm.     The bona fides of the informant is castigated showing the
representation dated 19.01.2026. The representation is after occurrence of the
incident and lodging of FIR. Hence, it is inconsequential. There is no material on
record to show that informant was in habit of filing false cases or her endeavour
was to blackmail and extort money from any of the members of the society.

8.      I have gone through the scene of offence. The room where the incident
took place, was in possession of the applicant. The scene of the offence is not
useful to decide the involvement of the applicant. Obviously, no incriminating
material or objectionable situation is noticed against the applicant. The applicant
was also medically examined and it is reported by the Medical Officer that
applicant cannot be said to be disabled one to perform sexual intercourse. The
age of the applicant is reported to be 53 years at the relevant time.             The
hypertension and ailment pertaining to liver are cited to disclose that the applicant
was unable to perform any sexual act. The submission of learned counsel Mr.
Gunale that his client was unable to perform any sexual act due to physical
disability, cannot be countenanced.

9.     I have carefully gone through the medico-legal certificate of the victim. In
column no. 15, the history narrated by the informant, is consistent with the
prosecution theory. In column no. 15, the pain in abdomen is recorded. Column
no. 15(f) shows a penetrative sexual intercourse. Hymen perineum is found to be
torn at 2 ‘O’ clock position. No external injuries were found on the body. The
provisional opinion records that sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.          The
radiological examination records the age suggestive of 8 years and 12 months
and radiological age on dental examination records probable age of 8 years and
10 months. The medical examination of the victim, in no uncertain word, indicates
the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault.

10.    My attention is adverted to the statement of the informant and the victim
recorded under section 183. Both the statements are consistent with the earlier
statements and would disclose the penetrative sexual assault as well as the

                                                                                  3/4
                                        4                           416 – 2026


sufferance of the pain by the victim. I have no hesitation to record that there is
strong prima facie case made out from the papers of investigation that applicant is
involved in a serious offence under section 64(1), 64(2) of BNS and section 4 and
6 of the POCSO Act. Considering the age of the victim, the maximum punishment
would be life imprisonment.

11.     It cannot be countenanced that informant would falsely implicate the
applicant at the cost of her daughter’s reputation, dignity and career. There is no
reason for the minor victim to implicate applicant identifying him as ‘Datta Mama’.
No case is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail. Application is rejected.

12.     Criminal Application No. 1272 of 2026, seeking to assist the APP, is
disposed of.




                                             ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

arp/-




                                                                                    4/4