Arjun Alias Bhurjya Gopal Pimpale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:30728 924 BA NO. 1139 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1139 OF 2025 Arjun Alias Bhurjya Gopal Pimpale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...

• Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Applicant • Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State • Ms. P. Y. Sarnaik, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (appointed) ...

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 07.11.2025 PER COURT :

1.

The applicant has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No. 94 of 2024, registered with Kopargaon Police Station, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 354, 342, 201, 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2.

The First Information Report is filed by victim - XYZ, alleging that the present applicant committed rape upon her and further threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. 3.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the alleged Jhs/ 1/2

924 BA NO. 1139 OF 2025 offence and has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It is contended that the applicant is a permanent resident of Kolpewadi, Taluka Kopargaon, and if released on bail, he will neither abscond nor tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4.

I have carefully perused the contents of the First Information Report as well as the statements of witnesses, forming part of the charge-sheet, which is filed along with the present application. Upon going through the material placed on record, I am of the opinion that looking to the direct evidence in the nature of the statements of complainant and other witnesses against the applicant, and having regard to the serious and grave nature of the offence alleged, this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail at this stage. The applicant, therefore, is not entitled to be released on bail. 5.

In view of the above observations, the application for grant of regular bail stands rejected.

6.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) Jhs/ 2/2