Allowed¶23

Taslim Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2025BA/1256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Taslim Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Criminal Bail Application No. 1256 of 2025; Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Shivkumar Dige, J.; decided 11 September 2025; regular bail granted; Crime No. 377 of 2024, Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara; S. 107 BNS 2023; Ss. 64, 74, 75, 76, 332(b), 351, 352 BNS; Ss. 4, 6, 8, 12 POCSO Act; sexual assault on minor; suicide after alleged harassing phone calls; N.C. complaint; C.D.R.; custody over one year; charge-sheet filed; P.R. Bond Rs. 30,000; advocates Kuldeep U. Nikam, Onkar Bajaj (applicant), Kanchan Pawar (Respondent No.2, legal aid), Ashvini A. Takalkar (APP).

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail in Crime No. 377 of 2024 (Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Taslim Mohamad Khan vs State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail in Crime No. 377 of 2024 (Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in Crime No. 377 of 2024 (Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara), registered under S. 107 BNS 2023 with subsequently added BNS and POCSO sections.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant had been behind bars for more than one year, that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed, and that he had already been released on bail in the POCSO case registered against him, his further detention was not required and he was ordered to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Key takeaways

The observations made while granting bail are confined to the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in this order.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench (Shivkumar Dige, J.), 11 September 2025 — Criminal Bail Application No. 1256 of 2025, Taslim Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. — Regular bail sought in Crime No. 377 of 2024, Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara, registered under S. 107 BNS 2023, with Ss. 64, 74, 75, 76, 332(b), 351, 352 BNS and Ss. 4, 6, 8 & 12 POCSO Act subsequently added — prosecution case of sexual assault on the first informant's minor daughter; after earlier release on bail, alleged persistent harassing phone calls led to her suicide; N.C. lodged by the deceased; C.D.R. showed calls by applicant — HELD: applicant in custody over one year, investigation complete, charge-sheet filed, and already released on bail in the POCSO case; further detention not required — bail on P.R. Bond Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount — observations confined to the bail stage; trial court to decide on merits uninfluenced.

¶1

56-BA-1256-2025 (CR).DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1256 OF 2025

¶4

Taslim Mohamad Khan ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam a/w Mr. Onkar Bajaj for Applicant. Ms. Kanchan Pawar, for Respondent No.2 through legal-aid. Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. N. S. Raskar LHC, Dahiwadi Police Station, present.

¶6

_______ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 11^th SEPTEMBER 2025

¶7

P.C.

¶8

By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.377 of 2024 registered with Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara for the offences punishable under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Subsequently Sections 64, 74, 75, 76, 332(b), 351 and 352 of the BNS along with Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) were added.

¶9

It is prosecution’s case that applicant had sexually assaulted the minor daughter of the first informant, hence case was lodged against him. He was released on bail in the said crime and thereafter

¶10

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date: 2025.09.12 17:21:06 +0530

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

Sajakali Jamadar

¶13

56-BA-1256-2025 (CR).DOC

¶14

continuously harassing the minor daughter of the first informant by making phone calls to her by different numbers. Due to continuous harassment by the applicant, the minor daughter of the first informant has committed suicide.

¶15

It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is behind bar for more than one year. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. At the time of incident, the applicnt was staying at Satara, whereas the deceased was staying at Gondwale Budruk. The co-accused against whom, the allegations of sexual assault on deceased has been released on bail. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶16

It is contention of learned A.P.P. along with Respondent No.2 that offence under the POCSO Act is registered against the applicant alleging that he kidnapped the deceased and sexually assaulted her. After releasing on bail, he continuously harassing the deceased by making phone calls to her. Due to his continuous harassment, the deceased has committed suicide. The N.C. was also lodged by the deceased against the applicant. The C.D.R. produced on record shows that the applicant was making phone calls to the deceased. If applicant released on bail, he may threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

Sajakali Jamadar

¶19

56-BA-1256-2025 (CR).DOC

¶20

I have heard all the learned counsels, perused the FIR and documents produced on record. The Applicant is behind bar for more than one year. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant has been released on bail in the POCSO Act registered against him. Considering these facts, his further detention is not required.

¶21

In view of the above, I pass the following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) Application is allowed;

¶24

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.377 of 2024 registered with Dahiwadi Police Station, District Satara, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶25

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

¶26

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶27

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

Sajakali Jamadar

Taslim Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taslim Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Satyandra Malik @ Michael vs State of Maharashtra

Bhagwan Jalindar Naiykar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravi Kotya Ajmera vs State of Maharashtra

Cholamandalam Ms Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Sangita Macchindra Gulave and Ors.

Sandeep Shivaji Nagare vs State of Maharashtra

Cholamandalam Ms Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Sangita Macchindra Gulave and Ors.