Bombay High Court

VINAY SANJAY BHOIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that despite the delay in filing the FIR, the prima facie evidence of sexual assault and the applicant’s criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of the accused in a case registered under Sections 64(2) and 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the alleged rape of a 14‑year‑old girl. The applicant argued that the two‑month delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim’s statements indicated false implication, and cited his five prior criminal cases, all of which were on bail. The State contended that the FIR, the victim’s detailed account, and corroboration by an 11‑year‑old neighbour established a strong prima facie case, and that the seriousness of the offence and the applicant’s antecedents warranted denial of bail. The Court held that the delay was explained by the victim’s nervousness and did not undermine the prosecution’s case, and that the prima facie evidence of sexual assault together with the applicant’s criminal history justified refusing bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction to expedite the trial and a provision to renew bail after one year if the trial does not progress substantially.

Issues considered

Whether the two‑month delay in lodging the FIR is a sufficient ground to grant bail.
Whether a prima facie case exists under the BNS and POCSO statutes to justify denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents warrant refusal of bail.
Whether bail can be granted pending trial in a serious sexual offence case.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64(2), 65(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
rape
POCSO
delay in FIR
criminal antecedents
prima facie case
high court

Judgment

WAKLE
MANOJ                 MANOJ                                                 908-BA-682-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.08.20
18:46:43 +0530                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.682 OF 2026
                      Mr. Vinay Sanjay Bhoir                                …Applicant
                            V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       …Respondents


                      Mr. P. R. Pandey a/w Ms. Shahajahan Vasaya, for the Applicant.
                      Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                      API – Sachin Dhage, Mumbra Police Station, present.


                                                CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2026
                      P.C. :-

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

                      2.      The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
                      an FIR bearing CR No.1923 of 2024, registered with Mumbra
                      Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)
                      and 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and
                      Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection fo Children From Sexual
                      Offences Act, 2012      (“POCSO Act”), on the report dated 19 th
                      September, 2024 filed by victim girl aged 14 years.

                      3.      Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
                      that there is delay of two months in filing the report. The date of
                      the alleged rape is not mentioned in the report. There is
                      inconsistency in the statement of the victim and her mother. These
                      circumstances clearly indicate that the Applicant is falsely
                      implicated in this case. The Applicant has five criminal
                      antecedents, but, therein, he is on bail. Therefore, he urged to
                      release the Applicant on bail. The details of the aforesaid crimes
                      are as under :-
                                                    Page 1 of 3
MANOJ                                                908-BA-682-2026.DOC



 Sr. No.        CR Number                     Sections
     1     232/2019             394 and 34 of IPC
     2     610/2019             324, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC
     3     1729/2024            118(1) and 351(3) of BNS
     4     RCC No.3322/2024     324, 323, 506, 427, 141, 143, 147 and
                                149 of IPC
     5     1811/2024            64(1) and 64(2) of BNS


4.       In contrast, Ms. Shinde, learned APP submitted that there is
sufficient material against the Applicant of having committed the
alleged offence against the minor victim. There is nothing to
suggest that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.
The offence is serious. Therefore, and considering the antecedents
of the Applicant, bail be refused. Ms. Shinde has produced the FIR
of said C.R. No.1811/2024.

5.       I have considered these submissions. The material on record
indicates that sometime in July 2024, at about 7.30 p.m., when the
victim and her mother were present at home, the Applicant caused
the victim to go upstairs along with him on the pretext that his
pigeon was sitting over the terrace. When the victim found that
there was no pigeon, she questioned the Applicant. He replied that
he had come to meet her on a false pretext that his pigeon was on
the terrace. Further, the Applicant pulled the victim towards him,
pulled of her lower garment and committed penetrative sexual
assault. Consequently, the victim suffered pain and requested the
Applicant to leave her, otherwise, she will shout. However, the
Applicant tried to influence upon her telling that her disclosure
will only defame her. Further, the Applicant again repeated the
said act. Since the Applicant was stronger, her resistance was
futile. Further, the Applicant showed her his genital and told her
to apply her mouth. Therefore, the victim kicked him and


                               Page 2 of 3
MANOJ                                                 908-BA-682-2026.DOC



arranging her clothes, she went down. This assertion by the victim
in her report is supported with the statement of one neighbouring
girl aged 11 years, to whom the Applicant had threatened and told
to guard at the staircase.

6.      Thus, there is strong prima facie case against the Applicant
of having committed the alleged offence which is obviously
serious. No doubt, there is delay in the lodging the report,
however, the delay is satisfactorily explained by the victim stating
that as she was nervous due to the incident, she did not divulge the
incident to her family, immediately. Therefore, mere delay in the
report is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution case at this stage
and exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the Applicant.

7.      It is important to note that the Applicant has five criminal
antecedents including an offence of Section 64(1) and Section
64(2) of BNS. No doubt, in that case the Applicant is on bail, but,
the FIR of that case also mentions that said victim woman was
forcibly raped by the Applicant.

8.      In view of the above discussion, the Application is liable to
be rejected and is rejected, accordingly.

9.      The Trial Court is requested to expedite the case. If the trial
does not progress substantially and the delay is not attributable to
the applicant, liberty is reserved for the applicant to renew his
prayer for bail after one year.


                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                  Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…