Bombay High Court

JAGDAMBA PRASAD BADAI YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as he is not responsible for the trial delay.

Summary

The applicant, Jagdamba Prasad Badai Yadav, was charged under IPC sections 376, 376(3), 354, 452 and POCSO Act sections 4, 8, 12 for allegedly inserting a finger into the genitalia of a six‑year‑old girl. The charge‑sheet was filed in 2022 but the charge was not framed until 21 July 2025, leading to a prolonged period of incarceration. The applicant filed three bail applications, all of which were rejected by the trial court, and a fourth application before this Court was withdrawn. He argued that the delay in framing charges and the lack of any witness examination rendered his detention punitive. The State contended that the applicant was responsible for the trial delay and opposed bail. The Court examined the record and found no evidence that the applicant obstructed the trial or resisted the examination of witnesses, concluding that the delay was not attributable to him. Accordingly, the Court granted bail with strict conditions, emphasizing that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case involving serious sexual offences despite the gravity of the charges.
Whether the accused is responsible for the delay in framing charges and trial proceedings.
Whether prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a ground for bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354, 376, 376(3), 452
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO
sexual assault
prolonged incarceration
trial delay
criminal procedure

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4880 OF 2025

Jagdamba Prasad Badai Yadav ….applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. .…Respondents

Mr. Navkar Jain a/w. Mr. Vivek Thakare for the applicant.
Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Ashwini Achari, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Tukaram Mengal, PSI, Aarey Police Station, present.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in POCSO Special
Case No.572/2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judge
under POCSO Act, Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon Mumbai
arising out of Cr.No.430/2022 registered with Aarey Sub Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 376,
376(3), 354, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), 1860 and
Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 on the Report dated 05.10.2022
lodged by the mother of the victim.

3. The prosecution case is that in the night intervening 28 th
and 29th September 2022, at about 3:00 a.m., the applicant
entered in the makeshift hut of the victim girl aged 6 years and
committed penetrative sexual assault by inserting finger in her
genital. It is alleged that on 05.10.2022 at about 1:30 p.m., when
the applicant was present in front of the house of the informant,
the victim identified him. Therefore, the police was informed and

Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC

the applicant was apprehended. There the said crime came to be
registered.
The applicant’s 1st and 2nd Bail Application before the trial
Court came to be rejected on 02.08.2023 and 25.01.2024.
Thereafter, he filed BA/4181/2024 before this Court. She said
Application was allowed to be withdrawn on 15.04.2025 as this
Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thereafter,
the applicant filed 3rd bail application before the trial Court which
came to be rejected on 07.11.2025.

4. Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that
he is pressing this bail application only on the ground of prolonged
incarceration. To substantiate the same, Mr. Jain submitted that,
the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2022 and charge has been
framed on 21.07.2025, the charge was not framed. Till the date, no
witness is examined. He, therefore, urged to grant bail.

5. Opposing these submissions, Ms. Hiwrale, the learned APP
and Ms. Achari, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 have
submitted that the last bail Order dated 07.11.2025 clearly
indicates that the applicant is responsible for the delay in the trial.
Therefore and highlighting the act of the applicant, they submitted
to reject this Application.

6. I have considered these submissions. It is a matter of record
that, the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2022. The Applicant’s
BA/4181/2024 before this Court was allowed to be withdrawn on
15.04.2025 as this Court was not incline to release the applicant
on bail. However, till 21.07.2025 charge was not framed. It
appears that, since there was delay in framing the charge and the
case was not advancing, therefore, the applicant felt that his
detention was turning punitive. It was in these circumstances, the

Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC

applicant got constrained to file the 3 rd bail application on
21.07.2025. However, on the same day, the trial Court framed the
charge. Thereafter, the trial Court rejected the 3rd bail application
blaming the applicant that he was responsible for the delay in the
trial. However, meanwhile, the trial Court did not summon any
witness nor decided the bail application. There is nothing on
record indicating that the applicant was resisting the hearing and
disposal of his bail application or opposing to examine the
prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the applicant was not blameable
for the delay in the trial.

7. In the wake of above and, taking into consideration the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is
entitled for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Hence,
the following Order :-

(i) The applicant – Jagdamba Prasad Badai Yadav shall
be released on bail in POCSO Special Case No.572/2022
pending on the file of learned Special Judge under POCSO
Act, Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon Mumbai arising
out of Cr.No.430/2022 registered with Aarey Sub Police
Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Aarey Sub
Police Station, Mumbai on 1st day of each calender month
between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court.

(iv) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai till conclusion
of the trial.

Page 3 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC

(v) Till conclusion of the trial, the applicant shall not
reside/enter into the area where the informant with her
family is residing.

(vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.

(vii) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.

(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the outcome of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
merits of the case.

8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Digitally
signed by
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
2026.09.11
18:43:48
+0530

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…