Prashant Ashok Sul v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:15290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 226 OF 2026 PRASHANT ASHOK SUL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Munde Dhanraj P. APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. C. V. Bhadane. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Ms. Pramila V. Giri (appointed).

...

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 09.04.2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard both sides.

2.

The applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in respect of offence bearing Crime No.2 of 2026, registered with Renapur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and Section 67B of Information Technology Act.

3.

It is reported to the police that informant and applicant are the neighbour and resident of Pangaon, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. Informant was compelled to go to the agricultural land and compelled to enter well despite his resistance. Thereafter, sexual assault was committed by

the applicant narrated in the First Information Report. He was being threatened also. It is further alleged that co-accused videographed the incident through mobile handset. It was circulated on social platform through Instagram. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and informant are the neighbours. Applicant is of 18 years old and taking education. The mobile handset has already been recovered. He was arrested on 02.01.2026 and investigation is over. There is a delay in lodging complaint. It is submitted that there is no need to detain the applicant any further. 5.

Per contra, learned APP points out the statements of sister Vishakha and Muktabai to show that the video clip was circulated on social platform. There is no reason to discard the version of the victim minor.

6.

I have gone through investigation papers. There is no reason for the informant/victim to attribute serious allegations of this nature to the applicant. Applicant is of 19 years of age, senior than the informant. Nothing is surfaced from the papers to disbelieve the version of the informant. The statement of sister Vishakha and mother Muktabai of the informant would indicate that video clip was circulated by the accused persons through Instagram. It is not a singular overt act of the

applicant but circulation of video on social platform has aggravated the offence. It shows criminal intention and perversity to damage the reputation of not only applicant but that of all family members. It cannot be overlooked that one of the sisters is of 19 years of age and another sister is of 23 years old. They are young. The release of the applicant who is having perverse tendency is detrimental not only to the family members of the victim but members of the surrounding locality.

7.

The video clip has been referred to the forensic laboratory. Prima facie there is material to hold that overt act was been videographed. The delay in lodging First Information Report can be looked into during the course of trial although charge is framed in the trial. I find that no case is made out to release the applicant on bail.

(i) Bail application is rejected.

(ii) For rendering assistance to this Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 is quantified Fees of Rs.6,000/-.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ...

vmk/-