Balu Manohar Tayde v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Sonad, Buldhana

1 25 BA 1451.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1451/2025 (Balu Manohar Tayde Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. A. Mate, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. A. Anirudh, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

DATED : 13/02/2026.

Heard.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.161/2025 registered with Police Station Sonada, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punisahble under Sections 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 8, 10, 12, 14(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

Brief facts of the case is that, the grantmother of the victim lodged the FIR alleging that on 16.06.2025, the accused Balu called both the victims to his residence and promised each Rs. 10 if they followed his instructions. He then pulled down his pants and exposed his private part to them, asking them to hold it while showing pornographic videos on his mobile phone. This incident was witnessed

2 25 BA 1451.25 by one person namely Lakshmi Mehenkar who informed the informant. The informant then asked the victim girls who corroborated the aforesaid incident. This led to the registration of offences against the present applicant. 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there are allegations against the present applicant that he has shown explicit video to two minors who are aged about six years and seven years respectively and thereafter, he has asked the victim girls to hold his private part. However, he submits that the punishment for the said act is between five years to seven years. He invited my attention to various statements, so as to demonstrate contradictions in the version of eye witness. He further submits that even if it is presumed that the applicant has done the said act, still considering the maximum punishment, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5.

On the other hand, the learning APP and the learned counsel appearing for the victims vehemently opposed the application and submit that the FIR was lodged immediately. The act of the applicant is heinous. He

3 25 BA 1451.25 has abused two minor girls who are aged about six years and seven years. They further invited my attention to the statement of the victims, wherein they have specifically stated about the offence being committed by the applicant. Considering all these factors, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, as he would be a stigma on the society. They submit that harassment of minor girls is nothing but a child abuse and such persons should be kept behind bar till the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly they prayed to reject the application.

6.

I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the statement of the victim as well as various statements. Admittedly, there are serious allegations against the present applicant. The FIR was registered by the grandmother of the victim. It is alleged that the applicant took both the victim to at his house and showed them explicit video and thereafter he asked them to hold his private part in their hands. The said allegations are supported by the statement of the victims also.

4 25 BA 1451.25 7.

It is necessary to consider that the maximum punishment provided for the offence which are levelled against the applicant is maximum seven years. The applicant is in jail since 17.06 2025. Now the investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed. Considering this fact, I am inclined to grant the bail on imposing stringent condition, hence the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Balu Manohar Tayde, be released on bail in connection with Crime No.161/2025 registered with Police Station Sonada, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punisahble under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sectiona 8, 10, 12, 14(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer.

5 25 BA 1451.25 (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entails the State to ask for cancellation of bail.

(vi) The applicant/accused shall not enter into the village Sonada till conclusion of trial.

(vii) Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per Rules.

( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/02/2026 17:37:13