Bombay High Court
SAINATH EKNATH SAVARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant, aged 19 at the time of the alleged incident, was charged under IPC Section 376 and POCSO Sections 4, 6 and 8 for allegedly assaulting a minor in a toilet. The victim later testified that no incident occurred, claiming family pressure, while the applicant's wife, an alleged eyewitness, was not recorded by the investigating officer. After three years of incarceration and a pending trial with numerous witnesses, the court considered the seriousness of the offences, the victim's current stance, and the delay in trial. The court noted the victim’s consent to bail and the lack of immediate risk to the investigation. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the trial court would decide the case on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape and POCSO offences when the victim now denies the incident and claims family pressure.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and trial delay justify bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- minor victim
- family pressure
- pre‑trial detention
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 751 OF 2026
Sainath Eknath Savar ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Rajas Naik a/w Vishal Bhogle, for the Applicant.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP for the State-Respondent.
Ms. Harshita Nag, for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, Amicus Curiae, is present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 27th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with C.R. No. 2 of 2023 dated 2 nd January 2023 registered
with the Wada Police Station, Palghar for the offences
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”) and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
Applicant was 19 years of age at the time of the incident. On
Page 1 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
1st January 2023, when the victim went to the toilet outside
her house, the Applicant entered the toilet and sexually
assaulted her. She went to the police station and filed a
complaint pursuant to which, the FIR was registered. Thus,
the Applicant was arrested on 2nd January 2023.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi. However, by order
dated 3rd January 2026, the said application was rejected.
Hence, the Applicant is before this Court seeking the relief as
prayed.
4. Mr. Rajas Naik, learned counsel for the Applicant, has
placed on record the statement of the victim recorded by the
Trial Court in the course of the trial. According to Mr. Naik,
the victim herself has clearly stated before the Trial Court that
no such incident has taken place and she had never informed
the police as such. He submits that thus, the Applicant is
falsely implicated in the offence and the Applicant be released
on bail.
Page 2 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
5. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, learned APP, states that the offence
is serious. He submits that the fact that the victim has
recorded in her statement stated that no such incident has
taken place, itself indicates that she has been intimidated by
the Applicant’s family. Mr. Sonavane states that this is because
the Applicant/Accused is the cousin brother of the victim and
the family does not want to proceed with the case. It is in this
context, Mr. Sonavane states that the victim may have
deposed as such before the Trial court under the pressure and
control of the family members. He thus prays that the Bail
Application be rejected.
6. At the very outset, Ms. Harshita Nag, learned counsel
appearing for the victim, submits that the victim has informed
her that she does not want to proceed with the matter as she
is married and also has delivered a child out of the wedlock.
She supports the case of the Applicant and states that the
victim has no objection to enlarge the Applicant on bail.
Page 3 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
7. Considering that the victim was a minor at the time of
the incident and that Ms. Nag has informed me that the victim
herself has given consent to the grant of bail to the Applicant,
I deemed it appropriate to appoint an advocate from the Legal
Aid Services Authority of this Court to take instructions
directly from the victim. Accordingly, Ms. Munira
Palanpurwala, learned Advocate, was appointed to take
instructions from the victim directly and inform the Court as
to the status. Not so surprisingly, Ms. Palanpurwala was not
permitted by the father of the victim to talk to her. However,
she does confirm that the victim is in the hospital and has
delivered a child from her marriage. Accordingly, she also
states that the father of the Complainant has insisted that they
do not want to proceed with the case and has no objection for
the bail to be granted to the Applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record with their
assistance.
Page 4 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
9. Unfortunately, a young girl/victim appears to be
controlled by her family members considering there is familial
relationship between the victim and the Applicant. Prima
facie, it appears that the victim has deposed before the Trial
Court that the said incident never happened, under pressure
of the family members. I have perused the FIR very carefully.
In fact, the victim girl, in her statement along with the FIR,
has clearly stated that the Applicant’s wife also came over
there and immediately upon seeing his wife, the Applicant ran
away and the victim donned her clothes and returned to the
house. Thereafter, she informed her parents and grandparents
regarding the said incident. It is very disturbing to note that
the Investigating Officer has failed to record the statement of
the Applicant’s wife, since the Applicant’s wife was an
eyewitness to the entire incident.
10. Be that as it may, at this stage, the Applicant has
suffered incarceration for three years and there are 13
witnesses more to be examined before the Trial Court.
Page 5 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
Admittedly, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near
future. The Applicant is also a young boy of 25 years. Further,
admittedly, the victim herself is married and has delivered a
child from the wedlock with her husband.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no purpose will be served by
continued incarceration of the Applicant in custody. Hence, I
am inclined to grant relief to the Applicant and it is ordered as
under:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR
Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties
in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on
each and every date as directed, till the conclusion of the trial,
save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance
by orders of the Trial Court.
iii) If the Applicant holds a passport, he shall deposit the
same with the Police Station concerned;
Page 6 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
iv) The Applicant shall not leave India, without permission
of the trial Court;
v) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence
or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case;
vi) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence
and mobile contact number immediately after being released
and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the
Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;
vii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the
trial;
viii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
12. The Bail Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
Page 7 of 8
th
27 February 2026
905-BA-751-2026.DOC
13. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial
Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.
14. The Court acknowledges and appreciates the assistance
rendered by Ms. Munira Palanpurwala.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Page 8 of 8
th
27 February 2026
Checking your session…