Sahil Malang Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Harish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION. NO. 4029 OF 2024 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Sahil Malang Shaikh ...Applicant Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:

2025.09.26 11:14:56 +0530 Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane for the Applicant.

Ms. Deepali Bagla for Respondent No. 2 Appointed thr. Legal Aid.

Ms. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM :

SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE :

23rd SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in crime No.52 of 2024 registered with Valsang Police Station, Solapur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 11th February, 2024 at around 1.30 a.m. when the first informant was present in her house, at that time, the applicant forcefully entered in her house by broke open the door and sexually assaulted the first informant by threatening her on the point of knife. 3.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant 1/4

that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind bar more than 18 months. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has been filed. There is no progress in the trial. The applicant has no antecedent. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP along with respondent No.2 that the applicant forcefully entered in the house of the first informant and on the point of knife, he sexually assaulted the first informant. Learned APP further submits that the spot panchnama filed along with chargesheet shows that the door was broke open by the applicant. There are statements of eye witnesses which supports the first informant's version. Charg is framed against the applicant and trial is going to begin. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the first informant and prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.

6.

The applicant is behind bar more than 18 months. It appears from the record that investigation is completed and 2/4

chargesheet has been filed. Though charge is framed, trial has not been started. Applicant has no antecedent. Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order :

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.52 of 2024 registered with Valsang Police Station, Solapur Rural, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(iii) The applicant shall not enter in the Solapur City till recording of evidence of the first informant except attending the Court dates.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

7.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

8.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide 3/4

the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 4/4