Anil @ Panda Tukaram Jadhav And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 670 OF 2026 Anil @ Panda Tukaram Jadhav And Anr.

...Applicants

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

...Respondents

VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:

2026.04.29 14:45:05 +0530 _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Satish K. Ingale, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Amit Munde, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Vikas Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 27th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, learned APP, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

2.

By this application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No. 142 of 2025 registered with Mahad M.I.D.c. Police Station, Dist. Raigad for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(1), 376(3), 452 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3.

It is prosecution's case that in the year 2021-22, Applicants and co-accused sexually assaulted the first informant by threatening her when she was minor.

4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that there

is around three years' delay in lodging the complaint. No specific reason for delay is given. Applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The first informant in her supplementary statement has stated that applicants and co-accused sexually assaulted other minor girl but police has recorded the statement of said minor girl and she has not stated about any sexual assault by the applicants. Applicants are behind bars around seven months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed and requested to allow the application.

5.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that applicants sexually assaulted the first informant by threatening her when she was minor. The reason for delay in lodging the FIR is specifically mentioned in FIR. If applicants are released on bail, they may threaten first informant and prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

6.

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

7.

There is around three years' delay in lodging the complaint. In supplementary statement of the first informant, there is reference of other victim but the said victim has not stated about sexual assault by the Applicants. Applicants are behind bars around seven months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed.

8.

Considering these facts, I pass following order: ORDERB (i) The Applicants- (1) Anil @ Panda Tukaram Jadhav, (2) Kailas Ramji Pawar be released on bail in Crime No. 142 of 2025 registered with Mahad M.I.D.c. Police Station, Dist. Raigad, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (ii) The Applicants 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 Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

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