Created by Fuzzy Cloud

LegalDesk AI Logo Legal Desk AI

Bombay High Court

HARISH DHANAJI GALIYALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Allowed

Holding

Bail was granted to the accused on the basis of prolonged incarceration and trial delay.

Summary

Harish Dhanaji Galiyal was charged under Sections 363 and 376(4)(3) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting and raping a 12‑year‑old girl. He has been in judicial custody for more than six years and eight months, while the trial has progressed slowly due to the absence of his counsel and the prosecution’s pending examination of several witnesses. The applicant sought bail on the ground of prolonged pre‑trial detention and mental hardship. The State argued that the delay was attributable to the applicant’s own counsel and opposed bail. The Court noted the extensive delay, the applicant’s young age at the time of the alleged offence, and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude shortly, and therefore granted bail with conditions. The bail order was issued, releasing the applicant on a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties and imposing standard attendance and non‑interference conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted in a case involving kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor despite the seriousness of the offences
  • Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over six years justifies bail on the ground of undue hardship

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • prolonged detention
  • trial delay
  • kidnapping
  • sexual assault
  • child sexual offence
  • IPC
  • POCSO
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

SA_MANDAWGAD                                              906 BA 940-25.DOC


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 940 OF 2025

Harish Dhanaji Galiyal                                    … Applicant
      V/S.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.                          … Respondents


Ms. Sana Shaikh a/w.Nisha Lakariya, Maaya Updeshe, Pratik
Thadani, Shraddha Gaikwad, Nabratu Jadhav, Sneha Lad,
Amitech Kambale and Sunanda Shinde, for the applicant.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent No.1–State.
Ms. Meghna Gowalani, (appointed), for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Sanjivani Todkar, PSI, Kolsewadi PS, present.


                            CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :      7th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :-

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

2.        Ms. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the applicant, has tendered
the photocopies of the charge and Roznama in the case. The same
are taken on record and marked as ‘X’, respectively.

3.        The applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection
with C.R. No. 80 of 2020, registered with Kolesewadi Police
Station, Kalyan, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections
363, 376(4)(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”)
and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO”), on the report dated 23.02.2020
lodged by Shrikant Chandrakant Kardak against the applicant.

4.        The allegation against the applicant is that he had abducted
the minor victim girl aged about 12 years and 4 months, taken her
to various places between 23.02.2020 and 17.03.2020, and
                                Page 1 of 4
SA_MANDAWGAD                                             906 BA 940-25.DOC



subjected her to sexual intercourse. The applicant’s bail
application was rejected by the Special Court. Thereafter, the
applicant preferred Bail Application No. 1851 of 2023 before this
Court, which also came to be rejected.

5.     Ms. Shaikh, learned Advocate submits that the applicant has
been in custody for more than 6 years and 8 months. Although
charge has been framed in the year 2024, the trial has not
sufficiently advanced. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on
the ground of prolonged incarceration.

6.     In reply, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP and Ms. Gowalani,
learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 have submitted that the
applicant himself is blamable for delay in the trial because his
Advocate on record is not regularly attending before the Trial
Court. Therefore, they urged that bail be refused.

7.     I have considered these submissions and perused the
Roznamas of the case produced. The Roznamas indicate that on
various occasions, the Advocate for the applicant was absent
before the Trial Court. However, at the same time, the Trial Court
was also busy in bail matters and/or recording evidence in other
cases. Mr. Dedhia, learned APP, on instructions from Ms.
Sanjivani Todkar, PSI, Kolsewadi Police Station, stated that PW-1,
father of the victim girl, is in the witness box. However, his
examination-in-chief is yet not completed. Mr. Dedhia stated that
the prosecution is going to examine about 8 to 10 witnesses.
Therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude in few months. At the
time of the incident, the applicant was of only 22 years old. That,
more than six years long incarceration must have caused him great
mental stress and hardship.

                              Page 2 of 4
SA_MANDAWGAD                                                906 BA 940-25.DOC



8.     In the wake of the above, I am inclined to release the
applicant on bail. Hence, the following Order:

      (i)      The applicant- Harish Dhanaji Galiyal be released on
               bail in the aforesaid FIR registered with Kolsewadi
               Police Station, Kalyan, Thane on his executing P.R.
               Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
               sureties in the like amount.

      (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Kolsewadi
               Police Station, Kalyan, Thane on 1st day of each month
               between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the
               trial.

      (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
               before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the
               said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

      (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
               evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence
               the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from
               deposing against him.

      (v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
               his contact number and residential address to the
               Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in
               case there is any change.

      (vi) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
               Order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail
               application and should not influence the outcome of the


                                 Page 3 of 4
                       SA_MANDAWGAD                                                 906 BA 940-25.DOC



                                      trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion
                                      on the merits of the case.

                       9.     Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                                                       (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




          Digitally
          signed by
          SANJAY
SANJAY    ASARAM
ASARAM    MANDAWGAD
MANDAWGAD Date:
          2026.10.08
          14:57:30
          +0530
                                                         Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.