Bombay High Court
NUMAN MANNABI SAYYADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
On a prima facie basis the court found the alleged relationship to be consensual and, considering the accused’s young age and lack of violent conduct, granted bail with conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by a 20‑year‑old accused charged with offences under Sections 78(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 involving a 15‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleged a series of stalking, harassment and sexual relations, while the defence argued that the statements of the mother were inconsistent and that the relationship was consensual, with no evidence of force. The court examined the credibility of the statements, the age gap, the absence of coercion, and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, concluding that the relationship appeared consensual on a prima facie basis. Considering the accused’s young age, lack of antecedents and the reformative purpose of bail, the court granted bail with strict conditions. The order was limited to bail and did not address the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the alleged sexual relationship between the accused and the minor prosecutrix can be deemed consensual despite the victim’s minority.
- How the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applies at the bail stage.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the inconsistencies in the mother’s statements affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or re‑offending if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 78(1)
- Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 29
Subjects
- bail
- minor
- sexual offences
- consent
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- age of consent
- presumption under Section 29
- reformative justice
Judgment
BA.4651.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4651 OF 2025
Numan Mannabi Sayyad .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Rui Danawala a/w. Mr, Ibrahim Shaikh i/b. Mr. Ashraf Ali
Shaikh, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. S.G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1– State.
Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w. Mr. Ashraf Kazi, Advocates for Respondent
No.2.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Danawala, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms.
Talhar learned APP for Respondent No.1 State and Mr. Dushing,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in connection with CR
No.90 of 2025. Age of prosecutrix is 15 years. Applicant is 20 years
old, sole accused and charged for offenses punishable under Sections
78(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of
Prevention Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Applicant is in
custody for over 1 year and 5 months.
3. Complaint is lodged on 15.02.2025 for the first time by
mother of prosecutrix on her behalf. Her statement is appended at
1 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
page No.19. Prima facie reading of this statement shows that from
February 2024 onwards, Applicant who was residing in the same
building, followed the prosecutrix on certain occasions to her school
and stalked her. After this incident there was a meeting held between
the family members of both sides and Applicant was made to
understand and told not to follow and harass the prosecutrix. Next
charge stated in the complaint is that in May 2024, one fine day
Applicant visited the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone and
orally told her that he liked her very much and she should continue
talking to him. The first informant mother has stated that in the
evening of that every day once again the family of the Applicant were
called and he was made to understand by both the sides not to harass
the prosecutrix otherwise the First Informant would report the matter
to the police. The third charge in the complaint is that on 07.01.2025,
prosecutrix accompanied Applicant in his friend’s four wheeler car to a
nearby place called Moshi at 9:30 a.m. where he confessed his love to
her and proposed marriage. These are the 3 specific statements made
in the first recorded statement by the First Informant – mother after
consulting the prosecutrix on 15.02.2025.
4. Learned Advocate for Applicant would draw my attention to
the Supplementary Statement dated 18.02.2025 given by First
Informant 3 days later wherein she has recorded that in February 2024
Applicant had visited the house of prosecutrix and told her that he
2 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
wanted to have physical relations with her or otherwise if she refused
he will harm her brother. It is further stated therein that thereafter
Applicant used to frequently meet the prosecutrix in the parking lot of
the building or outside her school. These are the two additional
charges made in this first Supplementary Statement.
5. Learned Advocate for Applicant next draws my attention to
the second Supplementary Statement dated 24.02.2025 in which First
Informant has stated that in December 2024, Applicant lured the
prosecutrix to accompany him for a pleasure trip to Anandi and had
taken her to a lodge, but the lodge owner did not give them a room
looking at her age and therefore they returned back. The lodge owner
is not examined by the prosecution as no further details are given. In
this third statement it is further stated that Applicant used to borrow
the flat / room key from one of his friend name Prashant Behera
residing in the adjacent building and used to take the prosecutrix there
regularly. In this statement for the first time it is stated that Applicant
forcefully had physical relations with the prosecutrix in the vacant flat
belonging to Prashant Behera. Thereafter, it is stated that on 3 – 4
occasions (about which no details are given) Applicant had physical
relationship with the prosecutrix in the same vacant flat.
6. These are the three statements given by the mother of
prosecutrix. To ascertain prima facie veracity of these statements,
3 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
Prashant Behera’s statement is not recorded by the prosecution. There
is a gap of 3 days between the first and second statement and a further
gap of 6 days between the second and the third statement. It is seen
that First Informant has improved her case in a systematic manner and
therefore the three reports as filed become prima facie suspicious on
the face of record and call for prima facie investigation. Juxtaposed
with these reports is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on
18.02.2025 appended at page no.29 which does not refer to the charge
made in the first and second statement by her own mother at all.
Hence there is a clear dichotomy.
7. Against this backdrop, my attention is drawn by the learned
Advocate for Applicant to the statement of father of prosecutrix
appended at page no. 65 and recorded on 16.02.2025 i.e. one day
after filing of the First Information Report. In this statement what is
stated in the first statement of the First Informant is reiterated. The
prosecution has also recorded the statement of one Stephen Benedict
Pereira, a close friend of Applicant residing in the adjacent building
who has corroborated the fact that Applicant used to borrow the flat
key of Prashant Behera’s flat and take his girl friend over there on
several occasions and he knew about the same though he has not
specifically mentioned the name of the prosecutrix.
8. The father of the prosecutrix has then gave Supplementary
4 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
Statement on the same lines as the First Informant mother. The Medico
– legal Examination Report copy is appended at page No.73 and on
page No.75 thereof the prosecutrix has recorded her statement and
confessed about she having had a history of multiple sexual intercourse
episodes with the Applicant since February 2024 onwards. She has
recorded that Applicant was known to her as he was residing in the
same building and she has not given any history of use of physical
force or assault on her by Applicant. This is also confirmed from the
answers given by the prosecutrix in Clause No. 15 of the said Medical
report.
9. Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate appearing for the prosecutrix
has argued that age of the prosecutrix was of limited understanding as
she was a IXth Standard student and she was a victim of assault
committed by the Applicant who was a major and therefore the
Applicant does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Dushing has also
vehemently argued that Applicant has taken advantage of the
vulnerability of the minor despite knowing she was a student and had
forced himself upon her and therefore should not be released on bail as
he is bound to harass the prosecutrix and trouble her. Ms. Talhar,
learned APP has supported the submissions made by Mr. Dushing and
contended that looking to the fact that prosecutrix was a minor, the
Applicant having taken her advantage, this Court should dismiss the
Application.
5 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
10. Ms. Danawala, learned Advocate has argued on two specific
points namely that there is substantial improvement in the statements
recorded by the First Informant and her core submission is that if all
the statements recorded by the Investigation Officer are perused it will
be evident that the relationship between the Applicant and the
prosecutrix was consensual. She would submit this with a lot of force
because there is not a single statement or charge which states that
Applicant had ever used force on the prosecutrix. She would submit
that this is confirmed even by the prosecutrix herself in her own
statement given to the doctor. Lastly she would submit that over a
substantial period of time prosecutrix on her own volition accompanied
the applicant to various places and never ever raised any complaint or
objection. Hence, she would submit that eventhough the prosecutrix
being a minor, in the above facts she was completely aware about her
actions and herself volunteered on several occasions to accompany the
applicant which is borne out from the statements which are recorded.
Hence, she would submit that the application be allowed after on
perusing the record on the ground of both parties having indulged in
physical relationship on multiple occasions from February 2024 upto
February 2025 i.e. approximately 12 months.
11. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates and
considered the record of the case.
6 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
12. Admittedly both parties knew each other well. Prima facie
there is a clear improvement in the three statements filed by the first
informant which raises a substantial doubt. There is nothing in the
statements which shows any coercion or abuse by the Applicant to
have forced the prosecutrix, rather it is seen that over a period of one
year the prosecutrix volunteered to go out with the Applicant on
several occasions and maintained contact with him. Difference in age
between applicant and prosecutrix in around to 5 – 5.5 years. Silence
of the prosecutrix until 2025 upto which she was otherwise behaving
normal is what intrigues the Court.
13. Most importantly despite being aware of the multiple
meetings held between the parties and the Applicant being told not to
harass and meet the prosecutrix by the parents, it is seen that the
prosecutrix continued meeting the Applicant. Considering the
proximity of age between the two parties and the above facts and the
nubile age, consensual relationship in these facts cannot be ruled out
and is writ large on face of record. Though this Court is conscious of
the fact that delay in filing the First Informant Report is not fatal to the
prosecution case, but the aforementioned reasons and the period of 12
months of the parties meeting together on several occasions and going
out shows that the prosecutrix was clearly aware of her actions. She
never informed her parents before going out and accompanying the
Applicant or after returning back over a period of 12 months. She
7 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
herself has confessed to having physical relation with Applicant on
multiple occasions. Hence, the relationship over 12 months was prima
facie consensual, which compels me to consider the Applicant’s case for
grant of bail.
14. As held by this Court in the case of Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs.
State of Maharashtra1 it is true that a wrong doer is to be punished,
guilty is to be convicted. However at the stage of bail, Court has to
consider prima facie under what circumstances the offences are
committed by the accused. The offence of rape can be distinguished
on the basis of the intention of the accused. In the aforesaid judgment
the learned Court summed up the ethos of relationship between young
boys and girls aptly in paragraph No.11 of the said judgment which
reads thus:-
“11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex related issues and
lot of material is also available to them to know the sexual
relationship between a man and a woman. Because of their
impressionable age, girls and boys both may tend to get
provoked and there can be a curious and very compelling
demand of the body to get into such kind of relationship. Sexual
urge differs from person to person and there cannot be any
mathematical formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of
teenagers, as biologically whenever the child turns into puberty,
the child starts understanding his or her sexual needs. The
nature of response depends on the upbringing, peer pressure,
how civilized the environment is etc. Sex requires proper
physical and emotional preparation, as it results in many
physical and emotional consequences. This is all considered as a
sexual maturation. Therefore, some sects with view to regularize
sexual behaviour of the community have acknowledged this
biological factor and therefore, the early age marriages are
performed in some religions or communities. Taking into
consideration this social and biological factors, the law makers
have considered the age of 15 as a age of consent when the
1 BA No.1036 of 2015 – Decided on 03.08.2015
8 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
marriage is performed. Taking into consideration this
background, the trial Judge has to pass an order of bail in such
cases.”
15. In view of my above prima facie observations borne out from
the record, silence of Applicant and discrepancy noted herein above
coupled with and considering the age of the Applicant, I am of the
opinion that in the above facts further incarceration of the Applicant in
prison would amount to giving him punishment before conviction.
Considering Applicant’s age of 20 years and if he is enlarged on bail,
Court is hopeful that Applicant’s family will undoubtedly do their duty
to make every effort and attempt to reform and aid the Applicant in
leading a reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison
and expose him to criminal outlook and life in prison.
16. However on the flip side, if a chance is given to the Applicant
because of his young age by enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility
that he will be remorseful and repent in retrospect. This is a chance
required to be taken by the Court because punishment has to be
believed to be inflicted for a reformative result rather than being
punitive in nature and that too on consideration of the facts of each
case. Undoubtedly the trial will determine the punishment for the
offence. While considering Bail Application in such facts, Court feels
that reform and rehabilitation of the young under trial accused needs
to be considered especially when age of the accused is young so that
the accused gets an opportunity / or is given an opportunity to reform,
9 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honorably from the perspective of
social integration. This is a chance which the Court must take
considering the young age of accused. By considering this Court is not
stamping approval of any of the actions of Applicant regarding the
alleged crime in question. Court is also equally conscious of the
offence. In the present case, ages of the Applicant and the prosecutrix
are very young. If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison further, there
is every possibility that he might loose faith in the institution and
society at large and may tread the path of criminality or would waste
his life. Incarceration in prison statistically shows that it exposes many
youth to abuse. There are several harms of incarceration which are
inflicted disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why this
Court feels that any / every semblance of a chance towards a
reformative approach in punishment should be adopted, especially in
the case of young offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent
risk should be constructively taken by the Court in the case of young
offenders – accused before committing such accused to further custody
and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the
Society. These observations are only in the view of the young age of
the Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an
alternative to incarceration so that the Applicant can be at his home
with his parents, elder brothers and the community which may have a
positive impact on his mind.
10 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
17. The applicant has made out a strong case in the present facts
and circumstances for consideration. It is also crucial to consider that
the acts between the parties were never violent or forced and that the
offender has no antecedents. Assistance for this is drawn from para
Nos. 9 to 14 of a decision of this Court in the case of Sajid Mehendi
Hasan Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.2 which is
reproduced below for ease of reference:-
“ 9. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, and 6
of POCSO Act (special law) are concerned, it may be stated that
the provisions of this law are, though, stringent in nature,
however it would not deter the Court to grant or refuse bail in
order to secure the ends of justice more so when the trial has
not commenced despite a long hiatus and the case has been
pending trial before the trial Court for close to 5 years.
10. Assistance is drawn from the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras 3 wherein
the Court in paragraph No.2 has held thus:-
“2. Where a minor girl alleged to be taken away by
the accused person, had left her father's protection
knowing and having capacity to know the full
import of what she was doing and voluntarily joined
the accused, it could not be said that the accused
had taken her away from the keeping of her lawful
guardian within the meaning of section 361 of the
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). Something more
had to be done in a case of that kind, such as an
inducement held out by the accused person or an
active participation by him in the formation of the
intention either immediately prior to the minor
leaving her father protection or at some earlier
stage.”
11. Though the above referred case was decided well before
the POCSO Act was enacted, this Court is well conscious of the
presumption ingrained in Section 29 of the said Act and that
argument on prosecutrix’s consent is irrelevant but prima facie
if the statements of prosecutrix recorded are read, it is clearly
borne out that she has been consenting to the actions which is
gathered from the record of the case.
12. In the facts of the present case, attention is drawn to the
2 Criminal Bail Application No.1101 of 2024 decided on 27th March 2025
3 AIR 1965 942
11 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
decision of this Court (Coram: Mridula Bhatkar, J.) in the case
of Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra 4 to contend
that consensus of the prosecutrix who is below the age of 18
years is a mitigating circumstance for Trial Court to consider. In
furtherance to the above, Court has laid down certain specific
guidelines after taking into consideration relevant cases as also
the ethos and development of the age of the young offenders in
the Indian Society in general. Court in paragraph Nos.8, 9,11
and 12 has laid down certain principles which I find it apt to be
reproduced hereinbelow for consideration of bail in such
Applications. Paragraph Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 read thus:-
“8. It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan
was decided in the year 1967 when the women were
not enjoying the freedom which today the women
have. Albeit the Hon'ble Supreme Court then has
taken a pragmatic view and has acquitted
Varadarajan. Now we come across such cases
everyday. If a girl is a minor between the age group
of 15 to 18 years and if it can be safely inferred that
her consent was obvious, then it is a mitigating
circumstance. Some trial Courts dealing with such
Bail Applications, especially after Nirbhaya case,
started taking a strict approach and the accused are
denied the bail only on the ground that the
prosecutrix being minor below 18 years, her consent
is immaterial, therefore, in the case of rape on such
minor, no bail can be granted. This is a matter of
concern.
9. In view of the increasing offences against the
women especially of rape, the legislature and
judiciary both found it obligatory to deal these
offences with severe punishment and women can be
protected if the laws are made rigorous. Therefore,
report of Justice Verma Committee was accepted
and necessary and significant amendments were
made in these two sections. A wrong doer is to be
punished, guilty is to be convicted. However, at the
stage of bail, the Court has to consider prima facie
under what circumstances the offence is committed
by the accused. In the Criminal law, the Court
cannot ignore the intention or motive behind the act
and that is an important factor in the commission of
offence so also to decide the quantum of sentence at
the end of trial, so in the case of bail.
10. ...
11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex
related issues and lot of material is also available to
them to know the sexual relationship between a
man and a woman. Because of their impressionable
age, girls and boys both may tend to get provoked
and there can be a curious and very compelling
4 Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015, decided on 03.08.2015.
12 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
demand of the body to get into such kind of
relationship. Sexual urge differs from person to
person and there cannot be any mathematical
formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of
teenagers, as biologically whenever the child turns
into puberty, the child starts understanding his or
her sexual needs. The nature of response depends
on the upbringing, peer pressure, how civilized the
environment is etc. Sex requires proper physical and
emotional preparation, as it results in many
physical and emotional consequences. This is all
considered as a sexual maturation. Therefore, some
sects with view to regularize sexual behaviour of
the community have acknowledged this biological
factor and therefore, the early age marriages are
performed in some religions or communities.
Taking into consideration this social and biological
factors, the law makers have considered the age of
15 as a age of consent when the marriage is
performed. Taking into consideration this
background, the trial Judge has to pass an order of
bail in such cases.
12. The overall considerations while deciding such
applications can be summed up as -
When a boy and a minor girl are in love with each
other and chose to live together without consent of
their parents, then the following factors are to be
considered:
(i) What is the age of the prosecutrix, who is minor.
(ii) Whether the act is violent or not.
(iii) Whether there are antecedents or not.
(iv) Whether the offender is capable of repeating
the Act or not.
(v) Whether there is likelihood of threats or
intimidation, if at all the boy is released.
(vi)Whether any chance of tampering with the
material witnesses when their statements are
recorded.
(vii) It is also to be taken into account in such cases
that a boy in his early 20's deserves to get
employment and to plan, stabilize and secure his
future.”
13. Next the decision of this Court (Coram: Sandeep K.
Shinde, J.) in the case of Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav Vs. The
State of Maharashtra5 is also relevant in the facts of the present
5 Criminal Bail Application No.2632 of 2019 decided on 09.01.2020
13 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
case. Relevant paragraph No.4 is reproduced below for
reference and reads thus:-
“4. …..The conduct of the victim is indicative of
the fact that she had left the home of her parents by
her own will and that she had surrendered to the
physical desires of the applicant out of her love and
affection for him. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the applicant had promised to
marry her. Additionally, it is also not a case where
under the misconception of the fact, she had served
herself to the desire of the applicant for physical
relations. No doubt, that the applicant, under the
preview of POCSO Act, is a minor, however, the
facts of the present case indicate that she had
sufficient knowledge and capacity to know full
import of what she was doing and had only
thereafter voluntarily joined the complainant
(applicant).”
14. There is no doubt that presumption under Section 29
exists but it is not an absolute presumption. This Court is of the
opinion that presumption would come into play only when
prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would prima
facie form the foundation for the presumption. Otherwise, all
that the prosecution would be required to do is to raise some
allegation against the accused person and claim that the case
projected by it is true. Court will have to be on guard to see that
application of presumption without adverting to the essential
facts shall not lead to injustice since we are at a prima facie
stage and trial has not even begun. The presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute. Attention in this
regard is invited to the decision of High Court of Kerala in the
case of Joy Vs. State of Kerela Represented through the Public
Prosecutor6 in a similar case where age of prosecutrix as below
18 years and a similar argument was made. The relevant
paragraph Nos.9 to 11 are reproduced below:-
“9. Mere delay in reporting the matter to the
authorities concerned, especially sexual assault on a
minor girl, is immaterial and it would not be fatal to
the prosecution case. However, in the instant case, it
is not the delay alone that is significant. The
significant fact is that the complaint was given to the
authorities concerned only two weeks after the
mother received the lawyer notice from the
petitioner claiming a huge amount as professional
fees. This raises suspicion on the prosecution case
against the petitioner. When the victim had
disclosed the matter to her mother in July, 2018,
one would have expected the mother to report the
matter to the authorities concerned much earlier
6 2019 SCC OnLine 783.
14 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
than 22.09.2018. The fact that she reported the
matter only after receiving a lawyer notice from the
petitioner assumes significance.
10. This court is not oblivious to Section 29 of the
Act which contains a legislative mandate that the
court shall presume commission of the offences by
the accused unless the contrary is proved. Section
29 of the Act states that where a person is
prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3,
5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall
presume, that such person has committed or
abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the
case may be, unless the contrary is proved. The
court shall take into consideration the presumption
under Section 29 of the Act while dealing with an
application for bail filed by a person who is accused
of the aforesaid offences under the Act (See State of
Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : AIR
2017 SC 630).
11. However, the statutory
presumption under Section 29 of
the Act does not mean that the
prosecution version has to be
accepted as gospel truth in every
case. The presumption does not
mean that the court cannot take
into consideration the special
features of a particular case.
Patent absurdities or inherent
infirmities or improbabilities in the
prosecution version may lead to an
irresistible inference of falsehood
in the prosecution case. The
presumption would come into play
only when the prosecution is able
to bring on record facts that would
form the foundation for the
presumption. Otherwise, all that
the prosecution would be required
to do is to raise some allegations
against the accused and to claim
that the case projected by it is
true. The courts must be on guard
to see that the application of the
presumption, without adverting to
essential facts, shall not lead to
any injustice. The presumption
under Section 29 of the Act is not
absolute. The statutory
presumption would get activated
15 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
or triggered only if the prosecution
proves the essential basic facts. If
the accused is able to create
serious doubt on the veracity of
the prosecution case or the
accused brings on record materials
which would render the
prosecution version highly
improbable, the presumption
would get weakened. As held by
the Apex Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :
AIR 2011 SC 312, frivolity in
prosecution should always be
considered and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of
anticipatory bail. No inflexible
guidelines or straitjacket formula
can be provided for grant or
refusal of anticipatory bail. It
should necessarily depend on facts
and circumstances of each case in
consonance with the legislative
intention.”
18. Hence, in view of the above facts and citations, in the
present case, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the Applicant in
prison considering his young age is likely to worsen his likelihood of
success in every sphere of life and society and it will expose him to
abuse. While granting bail in such facts there is a very thin line rather a
faint line between punitive and reformative approach and therefore in
the facts of the present case delineated herein, I am inclined to grant
bail to the Applicant on the following terms:-
16 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
(i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount;
(ii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station once every month on the third Sunday
between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the first one year and
thereafter as and when called;
(iii) 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 cancellation of this
order;
(iv) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without
prior permission of the Trial Court;
(v) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vi) 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;
(vii) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the prosecutrix
either physically or by any electronic devices / means until the
17 of 18
BA.4651.2025.doc
trial is completed and the verdict is delivered by the Trial
Court; and
(viii) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the
prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.
19. 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 and the trial shall be adjudicated on
its own merits in accordance with law.
20. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.21
12:49:11 +0530
18 of 18
Checking your session…