Paresh Maruti Wadkar v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4304 OF 2025 VAISHALI ANIL Paresh Maruti Wadkar ...Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...Respondents

_________________________________________________________________ by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.04.07 14:39:57 +0530 Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w. Mr. Pranil Vichare, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

Ms. Sahana Manjesh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

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

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 52 of 2025 registered with Mahad City Police Station , District Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections. 64(2) (j), 64(2) (m), 65(1) fo Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4,5(j) (ii), 5(I), 6,8, 9(I)and 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

It is prosecution's case that Applicant sexually assaulted the minor daughter of the first informant by threatening her and impregnated her.

4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that there was love affair between Applicant and victim. There delay in lodging the complaint. Applicant is behind bars for more than one year. There is no progress in the trial. Applicant has no antecedents and requested to allow the application.

5.

It is contention of learned App along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the victim was 13 years' old when applicant impregnated her. The DNA of gestation is matched with the applicant, which shows involvement of the applicant in crime. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

6.

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

7.

There is delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint is lodged when first informant came to know about pregnancy of the victim. The Applicant has no antecedents. Applicant is behind bars more than one years. There is no progress in the trial.

8.

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant- Paresh Maruti Wadkar be released on bail in Crime No. 52 of 2025 registered with Mahad City Police Station , District

Raigad, 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 called and cooperate with the investigating officer. (v) The Applicant shall not contact the victim and the first informant.

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