Vaibhav Shivram Meragua v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2025 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Vaibhav Shivram Meragua ...Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:

2026.02.23 16:34:55 +0530 _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w. Mr. Sumit Patil a/w. Ms. Abhilasha Pawar a/w. Mr. Luv Suchak, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. P.G. Narula, Advocate for Respondent No.2. PSI Nikam, Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Dist. Pune). _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

1Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP for State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

2.

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.605 of 2022 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2) (n), 372(i), 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(a),, 4,7,8,11,12,16 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20212.

3.

It is prosecution's case that Applicant kidnapped minor daughter of the first informant, married with her and sexually assaulted

her. It is alleged that Applicant was family friend of first informant and by taking undue advantage of it, he committed the present crime. 4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that Applicant is behind bars more than one year. there is two years' delay in lodging the complaint in respect of allegations of sexual assault. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Councilor's report produced on record, shows that the victim was not in good terms with her mother i.e. First Informant. Applicant has no antecedents and requested to allow 5.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that at the time of incident, victim was 13 years and five months old. Applicant was family friend of First Informant's family. Applicant kidnapped the victim, taken to her at various places, married with her, he threatened her and beaten her and sexually assaulted her. Applicant was already married. He was aware about the age of the victim. In spite of that he sexually assaulted her. He submits that if Applicant released on bail, he may threaten victim and prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the Application.

6.

I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

7.

It appears from record that on 19/09/2022 initially complaint of kidnapping of victim was filed by First Informant. Thereafter, victim

met her mother. Hence, further investigation was done in the said complaint. It is alleged that thereafter, victim disappeared from her house, hence, investigation started by police to take search of the victim. It is alleged that at that time Applicant misguided the first informant and police. It is alleged that during that period, Applicant took the victim at various places. Forcefully married with her by taking help of co-accused, beaten her and sexually assaulted her. It appears from record that victim at her own stayed at various places. It appears from record that initially the police have recorded two statements of the victim. In the said statement, she has not stated about alleged sexual assault by the Applicant. In third statement recorded in 2024, she had stated about alleged sexual assault committed in the year 2022. There is around two years' delay in making allegations of alleged sexual assault. The Applicant is behind bars more than one year and six months. He has no antecedents. Investigation is completed. It may take time to conclude the trial. 8.

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant- Vaibhav Shivram Meragua be released on bail in in Crime No.605 of 2022 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Dist. Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)