Krish Mangesh Sonawane v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2280 OF 2025 Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:

2025.12.01 20:58:07 +0530 Krish Mangesh Sonawane ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Mr. Himanshu Mane a/w Chaitanya Bagul i/b Prakash Salsingikar, for the Applicant.

Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. Dipali Kadam, for Respondent No.2/Victim.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED:

01 DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra and Ms. Kadam, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2-Victim. 2.

By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.171 of 2025 registered with the Kondhawa Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable under Sections 64 and 64(2)(m) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3.

As per the prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR as well as in the subsequent Complaint dated 13th April 2025, the Applicant, on the promise of marriage, established sexual relationship with the daughter of the First Informant and thereafter refused to marry her.

4.

It is the submission of Mr. Mane, learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the relationship was consensual. In fact, the father of the First Informant had opposed the said relationship and therefore the said relationship was discontinued. He submits that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the Applicant will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. 5.

On the other hand, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP and Ms. Kadam, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of Respondent No.2, strongly oppose the Anticipatory Bail Application. Both of them submit that when the relationship started the Informant was a minor, aged 15 years and therefore the

offence is very serious. Mr. Mane, learned Counsel for the Applicant, states that even at that time the Applicant was also a minor.

6.

Perusal of the record shows that the Applicant and the daughter of the First Informant were in a consensual relationship and when the said relationship started both of them were minor. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the victim shows that the relationship was consensual. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Thus, investigation is completed.

7.

Accordingly, by imposing conditions, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. In view thereof, the following Order is passed:

O R D E R

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Krish Mangesh Sonawane, in connection with CR No.171 of 2025 registered with the Kondhawa Police Station, Pune City, he be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent

sureties in the like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, once in a month i.e. on the first Sunday of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.. (c) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

8.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

9.

This Court places on records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Dipali Kadam, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai is requested to pay her professional charges as per the rules.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]