Nikhil Pramod Satav v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2025 Nikhil Pramod Satav ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr ... Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. R. V. Gupta a/w Rohit Vaishya, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. R. D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Heramb B. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. _________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 12th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C. :
.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
2.
The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has tendered affidavit of first informant, which is taken on record and marked as 'x' for identification.
3.
By this Application, applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 520 of 2024 registered with Baramati Taluka Police Station offences punishable under Section 64, 65(1), 351(2), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4.
It is prosecution's case that, on 14th November 2024 at 09.00
pm applicant sexually assaulted minor daughter of the first informant who was 13 years 11 months old.
5.
It is contention of the learned applicant that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. At the time of the incident, the applicant was 19 years old. He is a student and has been behind bars for more than one year and six months. There is no progress in the trial, and requested to allow the application.
6.
It is contention of learned APP that the applicant sexually assaulted the minor daughter of the first informant, who was 13 years 11 months old. There is a medical report supporting the prosecution's case. If the applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the victim and prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the application. 7.
It is contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the complaint was lodged due to a misunderstanding, and that the first informant has no objection to allowing the bail application. 8.
I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.
9.
The applicant is behind bars more than one year and six month. At the time of the incident, he was 19 years old. There was three day's delay in lodging the complaint. Considering there facts. I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. Crime No. 520 of 2024 registered with Baramati Taluk Police Station on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
10.
It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
11.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)