Bombay High Court

ADITYA ANIL MULAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Bail was denied as the court found a prima facie case of sexual assault supported by medical and DNA evidence.

Summary

The applicant, Aditya Anil Mulam, sought bail in a POCSO special case alleging penetrative sexual assault on a five‑year‑old boy, with charges under Section 377 IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that there was a three‑day delay in filing the FIR and a ten‑day delay in recording the victim’s statement, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case, and highlighted that he had been in custody for over three years without trial progress. The State contended that the medical findings of anal fissures, corroborated by a DNA report, established a strong prima facie case, and also noted a similar charge in another case involving a four‑year‑old girl. The court examined the evidence, found the prima facie case sufficient to deny bail, and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and not the trial merits. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and recording the victim’s statement warrants grant of bail in a POCSO case
Whether the medical and DNA evidence establish a prima facie case justifying denial of bail
Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention affects the bail decision

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 377
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 6, 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO
child sexual assault
DNA evidence
medical evidence
prima facie case
Section 377 IPC
delay in FIR

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI                                                       21 BA907.2025.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  BAIL APPLICATION NO. 907 OF 2025

Aditya Anil Mulam                                                …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                         …Respondent


Mr. D.D. Dubey (through VC) for the Applicant.
Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Rekha Musale a/w. Mr. Nasim Khan for the first informant.
Ms. Hemlata Vaje, PSI, Charkop Police Station, present.


                            CORAM:          SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :         7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

1.       Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Mr.      Pethe,    the   learned     APP         tendered   on    record   the
correspondence dated 16.04.2024 along with DNA Report. It is
marked as ‘X colly’.

2.       The Applicant seeks his release on bail in POCSO Special
Case No.344 of 2023 pending before the Court of the learned
Special Judge under POCSO Act, Borivali Division, Dindoshi,
Goregaon, Mumbai, arising out of Cr.No.150/2023 registered with
Charkop Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and Sections 4, 6, 8
and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012 on the Report dated 07.05.2023 filed by the
mother of the victim boy, then aged 5 years.

3.       Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Applicant appearing
through VC submitted that there is three days delay in filing the
Report. There is also 10 days delay in recording the statement of
the victim. These circumstances create doubt about the veracity of
                                   Page 1 of 2
                      P.H. JAYANI                                                21 BA907.2025.DOC



                      the prosecution case. The Applicant is in jail for more than three
                      years. The trial has not advanced. Therefore, bail be granted.

                      4.       In response, Mr. Pethe, the learned APP and Ms. Musale,
                      learned appointed Advocate for the informant submitted that
                      there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having
                      committed the penetrative sexual assault against the victim.
                      Therefore, bail be refused.

                      5.       As narrated in the Report, that, on 4 th and 5th May 2023, at
                      the residence of the informant, the applicant committed
                      penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The medical evidence
                      indicates that, the victim had suffered fissures and redness at the
                      anus due to the sexual assault. Thus, the allegations in the Report
                      are corroborated with the medical evidence, thereby making a
                      strong prima facie case against the applicant. Additionally, the
                      DNA Report also supported the allegations in the Report. Similar
                      offence has been registered against the applicant, i.e., Cr.No.
                      151/2023 with the same Police Station. Therein, the victim is the
                      girl child aged 4 years.

                      6.       In the wake of the above, the applicant is not entitled for
                      bail. As a result, the application is rejected and disposed of.

                      7.       It is clarified that the observations 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.


  PREETI
  HEERO                                                (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
  JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.09
19:07:52 +0530

                                                      Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…