PRADEEP SHESHRAO SALVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                    BA.896.2026.doc

Ajay

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       BAIL APPLICATION NO. 896 OF 2026

       Pradeep Sheshrao Salve                             .. Applicant
            Versus
       The State of Maharashtra                           .. Respondents
                              ....................
        Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey i/b. SAVJ Law Solutions, Advocates for
         Applicant.
        Ms. S.G. Talhar, for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Ms. Jyoti Barai, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
        Ms. Pooja Patil, PSI Kalepadel Police Station, Pune City.
                                    ......…...........
                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                   DATE         : AUGUST 20, 2026
         P.C.:

          1.     Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Talhar,

          learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1- State; Ms. Barai, learned

          Advocate for Respondent No.2.

          2.     Present Bail Application is filed by Applicant under Section

          483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

          enlargement on bail in connection with CR No. 271 of 2025 for

          offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 74, 351(2) of

          Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2), 5(m), 5(n), 8

          and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.

          Age of prosecutrix is 11 years old and complainant is her mother.

          3.     Date of offence alleged is a singular incident on 22.06.2025.

          First informant has filed First Information Report (for short “FIR”)

                                                                            1 of 6
                                                         BA.896.2026.doc


on 13.07.2025. It is stated therein that on 12.07.2025, prosecutrix

informed her mother that Applicant visited their house on

22.06.2025 at 11:00 a.m. when no one was present, outraged her

modesty, assaulted her and left after threatening her.

4.    Criminal law is set into motion on the basis of the aforesaid

complaint. According to First Informant, prosecutrix was admitted

to a hostel for studies on 23.06.2025 by the First Informant herself.

The prosecutrix thereafter returned home on 12.07.2025 to visit her

mother and at that time she narrated the alleged assault on her by

Applicant on 22.06.2025. It is intriguing that when the           First

Informant accompanied the prosecutrix immediately after the

alleged date of assault, she did not inform anything to her mother.

If the assault had indeed taken place on 22.06.2025, when the First

Informant was with her mother, until she was admitted to the

hostel the prosecutrix could have informed and complained about

the assault. That was not done.

5.          Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Applicant has drawn

my attention to the investigation carried out by the Investigating

Officer. It is seen that after filing the FIR dated 13.07.2025, the

First Informant has recorded Supplementary Statement after 13

days on 26.07.2025. This Supplementary Statement is appended at

page No. 84. In this Supplementary Statement the first informant

herself has stated that Applicant is her relative through some

                                                                 2 of 6
                                                         BA.896.2026.doc


relations is a step brother and she herself has been in a love

relationship with him for the past 2 years and thereafter reiterated

the statements made in the FIR once again. Her Supplementary

Statement categorically shows that Applicant was known to the

entire family and the prosecutrix used to call him uncle (kaka). This

Supplementary Statement is given by First Informant because of the

investigation done by the Investigating Officer since the First

Informant could no longer suppress her relationship and escapades

with the Applicant.


6.          The Investigating Officer’s investigation has led to

recording of the statement of hotel manager of Ruturaj Lodging and

Boarding, copy of which is appended at page No.86. What is

interesting is that on the alleged date of the incident i.e. 22.06.2025

when First Informant and prosecutrix claim that Applicant

committed the assault, on that very day from 7:45 a.m. in the

morning upto 4:20 p.m. in the evening, the Applicant and First

Informant spent their entire time together in the said hotel room

which they had booked by claiming to be husband and wife.

Investigation has revealed that according to eyewitnesses at the

hotel, both Applicant and First Informant checked into the hotel

room after signing the register and giving their Aadhaar cards as

proof. The hotel manager questioned First Informant about the

name difference on the Aadhaar card, because it was not as per

                                                                 3 of 6
                                                        BA.896.2026.doc


Applicant’s name, since she claimed to be the wife of Applicant. She

however informed the hotel manager that her Aadhaar card was in

her maiden name prior to her marriage. Details of both the Aadaar

cards were entered into the hotel booking register. Documentary

evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer, witness

statements were recorded about Applicant and First Informant

having spent the entire day together on 22.06.2025 inside hotel

room No.107 from 7:45 a.m. to 4:20 p.m. and the same is placed

on record before me. I have seen the same.


7.    In view of the above, allegations contained in the FIR that on

22.06.2025 Applicant visited the house of First Informant in her

absence and committed the alleged offense on the prosecutrix is

prima facie unbelievable and raises a grave doubt and suspicion for

filing the FIR by the First Informant. The medical report of

prosecutrix which is appended and when read is prima facie

inconclusive and does not report of any assault whatsoever on the

prosecutrix.

8.    In view of the aforesaid strong circumstances presented by

the investigation, Applicant has made out a strong case for grant of

bail especially when the First Informant prima facie appears to have

filed a false complaint and post investigation she has tried to cover

up the same by admitting to her love relationship with the

Applicant.

                                                                4 of 6
                                                         BA.896.2026.doc


9.    In view of the aforesaid prima facie observation and findings

Application is granted on the following grounds:-

       (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 is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of

       Rs.25,000/- for his release immediately and file undertaking

       that he will provide one or two sureties in the like amount

       of Rs.25,000/- within a period of four weeks after his

       release which shall be accepted by the Trial Court. Applicant

       shall provide sureties as directed;


       (iii) 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;


       (iv) 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;


       (v)   Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

       without prior permission of the Trial Court;


                                                                 5 of 6
                                                                        BA.896.2026.doc


                     (vi)       Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

                     tamper with the evidence in any manner;


                     (vii) 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;


                     (viii) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the prosecutrix

                     either physically or by any electronic devices / means until

                     the trial is completed and the verdict is delivered by the

                     Trial Court; and


                     (ix) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the

                     prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.

  10.              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.

  11.              Bail Application is allowed and disposed.




                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

             Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
         HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT   Date: 2026.08.21
             15:27:48 +0530




                                                                                6 of 6