Bombay High Court
NAVNATH DADABHAU SINALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused with a cash bond and surety, subject to conditions restricting his movement and prohibiting tampering with evidence.
Summary
Navnath Dadabhau Sinalkar applied for regular bail in a case alleging sexual assault of his minor daughter under multiple IPC, Bhartiya Naya Sanhita and POCSO provisions. The prosecution argued that the victim, a nine‑year‑old, gave a statement under Section 164 CrPC and a medical report supported the charges, while the defence claimed the allegations stemmed from a marital dispute and that the FIR was lodged after a delay, with no charge framed after 20 months of incarceration. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the existence of a marital dispute, and the absence of a framed charge, but also recognized the seriousness of the offences. Balancing the risk of the accused influencing witnesses against his right to liberty, the court granted bail on a cash bond and surety, imposing conditions restricting his movement and prohibiting tampering with evidence. The trial court was directed to continue the trial on its merits without being influenced by the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape and POCSO offences given the seriousness of the charges and potential risk of the accused influencing witnesses
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of a framed charge justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376, 376(2), 376(2)(n), 376A, 376B
- Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 12, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- marital dispute
- FIR delay
- medical report
- witness tampering
- criminal procedure
Judgment
7-BA-858-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 858 OF 2025
Navnath Dadabhau Sinalkar … Applicant
Versus
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Respondents
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.01.09
11:27:20 +0530 ________________________________________________________
Mr.Mayuresh Ingale, for the Applicant.
Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
Ms.Aishwarya Sharma, for Respondent No.2 (Through VC).
________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :
. By this Application, Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime
No.273 of 2024 registered with Chakan Police Station, Pune for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(A-B), 376(2) and 376(2)(n) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 64, 65(2),
351(1) of the Bhartiya Naya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short) and Section 4,6,8, 10
and 12 of the Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(‘POCSO’ for short).
Page 1 of 4
7-BA-858-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
2. It is prosecution’s case that, the Applicant is father of the victim.
The First Informant is wife of the Applicant. There is marital dispute
between the Applicant and First Informant. It is alleged that on 20 th
December 2023, 21st December 2023 and 17th April 2024 the Applicant
sexually assaulted the victim, who was minor.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that, the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is dispute between
first informant and Applicant. The victim was taken to the hospital of
witness Dr.Sandeep Kawade on 20th April 2024 and he has opined that the
victim had urine infection. There is delay in lodging the FIR. In the FIR, it
is mentioned that, the victim was not taken to the hospital, but she was
taken to the hospital, it shows the contradictory statement of the First
Informant. The learned counsel further submitted that the Applicant is
behind bar for more than 20 months. There is no progress in the trial.
Hence, requested to allow the Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
the Respondent No.2 that, the Applicant sexually assaulted his daughter.
She was minor aged about 9 years old. The statement of the victim is
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement she has
stated about the act done by the Applicant with her. The medical report also
Page 2 of 4
7-BA-858-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
supports the prosecution’s case. Applicant is father of the victim, if he
released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses and
victim. Hence, requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. It appears from FIR that victim stated about the incident to the
First Informant on 19th April 2024 and FIR is lodged on 22 nd April 2024.
The victim was taken to the hospital of witness Dr.Sandeep Kawade. In his
statement given to the Police, he has stated that there was possibility of urine
infection in the private part of the victim. There is marital dispute between
the Applicant and First Informant. To prove the allegations against the
Applicant, trial is required. The Applicant is behind bar for more than 20
months, yet charge has not been framed.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant-Navnath Dadabhau Sinalkar be
released on bail in Crime No.273 of 2024 registered with
Chakan Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount.
Page 3 of 4
7-BA-858-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
(ii) The Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of the
Chakan Police Station till recording of evidence of the First
Informant and victim is recorded.
(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…