Amol Dattu Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:12986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 963 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 51 OF 2026 AMOL DATTU JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.P.A.Shendge PP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.B.Girase, P.P. along with Mr.R.K.Ingole, APP Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.P.C.Bhagure ...

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATE : 24.03.2026 P.C. :

1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2] The applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.309 of 2025, registered with Gondi Police Station Dist.Jalna, for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 64, 64 (2)(m), 92, 142, 351 (1)(2) of BNS, 2023 and 4, 5 (1), 6 of POCSO Act.

3] This Court, vide order dated 13.01.2026, had protected the applicant with direction to attend the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation by considering the fact that the applicant had made a statement that he has already married with the victim girl and relationship of the applicant with the victim girld was consensual.

4] The matter was thereafter listed on 13th March, 2026. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application. The learned APP had also informed this Court about non-cooperation of the applicant despite the interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026. However, by way of indulgence, this Court has again directed the applicant to remain present on particular dates and fixed time and cooperate with the investigation. This Court had taken note of the allegations of threat being extended to the victim and the family members of the victim and has observed that any further complaint of threats by the applicant to the victim

and her family members would be taken serious note of, on the next date of hearing.

5] The learned Public Prosecutor appears and informs that despite of stringent observations made by this Court in its order dated 13.03.2026 on the apprehension of the applicant extending threats to the victim and family members of the victim, the applicant has abducted the victim girl. The learned Government Pleader had produced on record the CCTV footage. The said CCTV footage is produced in pen-drive and the same is seen by this Court, which clearly shows forcible abduction of the victim girl at the instance of the present applicant.

6] The learned Public Prosecutor informs that in pursuance to the adduction by the applicant, another Crime being FIR No.77/2026 is registered against the present applicant and other 5 unknown accused persons. 7] Thus, taking into consideration the material produced on record by the learned PP i.e. the CCTV footage

and FIR bearing Crime No.77/2026 registered at Gondi Police Station, I am not inclined to exercise the powers under Section 482 o the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The applicant has misused the interim protection granted by this Court despite of the stringent observations of this Court in its order dated 13.03.2026 and has abducted the victim girl. It appears that the applicant has no regards to the rule of law and to the orders passed by this Court. The applicant has, thus, failed to make out any case for interference of this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is hereby rejected. 8] The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 13.01.2026 stands vacated.

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE DDC