Maruti Madhukar Shinde Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Maruti Madhukar Shinde Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with surety of the like amount, subject to conditions: not to pressurize prosecution witnesses, not to tamper with prosecution evidence, and not to enter village Nandurga, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, till conclusion of trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned for offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act (Crime No.85 of 2025, Killari Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur), is entitled to regular bail.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the crime, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, that the applicant has roots in society and will not flee from the trial, that the trial will take a long period, and that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary, the bail application deserves to be allowed on certain conditions.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.85 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with surety of the like amount.

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner, shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, and shall not enter village Nandurga, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, till the conclusion of the trial.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted. Applicant accused of offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act (Crime No.85 of 2025, Killari Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur), on allegations of sexual assault on the informant's 9-year-old son. Charge-sheet filed and investigation complete; the court noted the applicant's roots in society, that the trial would take a long period, and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Bail allowed on a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with like surety, conditioned on not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, not tampering with prosecution evidence, and not entering village Nandurga till conclusion of trial. (Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.; decision dated 04.09.2025)

2025:BHC-AUG:23680

1 1068 BA.1288.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

1068 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1288 OF 2025

MARUTI MADHUKAR SHINDE VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ramkrushan M. Yedave, h/f Mr. Ramji T. Kotali. APP for Respondent / State : Mr. P. P. Dawalkar.

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Eknathrao Madne.

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 04^th September, 2025.

P.C.:

1 Heard.

2 This is an application for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.85 of 2025, registered at Killari Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. and under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.

3 The informant averred in the report that his son aged 9 years told him that the applicant asked him to bring matchsticks. The son of the informant brought it and gave it to the applicant. At that time, the applicant caught hold him and sexually assaulted him. At that time, the son of applicant resisted and told that fact to his father and

2

1068 BA.1288.2025.odt

report was lodged.

4 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime. There is variance in the statement of the child. The investigation is over. The applicant has roots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. The trial will take long period. It is lastly prayed to allow the application.

5 The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is involved in the serious crime. There is possibility of pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and tampering the evidence. Considering the serious nature of the crime, it is lastly prayed to reject the application.

6 Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and the statement of the victim child recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

7 Considering the nature of crime, the fact that the chargesheet has been filed, the applicant has roots in the society, he will not flee away from the trial, the trial will take long period and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary, the application deserves to be allowed on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:-

3

1068 BA.1288.2025.odt

O R D E R

I. The application is allowed.

II. The applicant in connection with Crime No.85 of 2025, registered at Killari Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. and under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/with surety of the like amount on following conditions:-

a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses, in any manner.

b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

c) The applicant shall not enter into village Nandurga, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, till the conclusion of trial.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]

nga