Allowed¶28

Sanjay Masu Thengal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2025BA/2070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted by Bombay High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 2070 of 2024, Sanjay Masu Thengal v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Crime No. 1218 of 2021, Sangola Police Station, Solapur; offences under IPC ss. 354(A), 354(D), 452, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506; IT Act ss. 67, 67(A), 67(B); POCSO s. 12; allegations of hacking and circulating victim's seminude photographs on WhatsApp; applicant in custody over two years, trial not commenced, no criminal antecedents; P.R. bond Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail in Crime No. 1218 of 2021 (Sangola Police Station, District : Solapur) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. ¶28

Sanjay Masu Thengal vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

13-BA-2070-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2070 OF 2024

¶4

Sanjay Masu Thengal ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vikrant Phatate a/w Mr. Vishal Waghela, Mr. Vijay Bendgud, Mr. Mahesh Arjun, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. C. D. Mali, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 – State.

¶9

Mr. Limbraj Manikrao Pawar for the Respondent No.2/Victim. Mr. Sachin Wagh (H.C.), Sangola Police Station, Solapur, present.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

This is an application for regular bail.

¶12

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No. 1218

¶13

of 2021 registered at Sangola Police Station, District : Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 452, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

¶14

Offences Act, 2012.

¶15

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2025.04.21 15:08:57 +0530

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

13-BA-2070-2024

It is the case of the prosecution that the co-accused Prashant Waghmare had made the victim to send her seminude photographs to him. It is alleged that said photographs were sent through Whats App. The allegations against the applicant, who was working as agricultural labour in the field owned by the parents of the victim are that, he at the instance of another co-accused got those photographs hacked from the mobile phone of the victim. It is alleged that the said photographs were then circulated on Whats App. There are allegations of assault against the other co-accused.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Victim.

¶21

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than two years and the trial has not commenced. It is submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents.

2 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

13-BA-2070-2024

On the other hand, the learned APP for the Respondent/State submits that considering the nature of offence the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶26

The applicant is in jail for more than two years. There are no other criminal antecedents. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Criminal Bail Application is allowed;

¶29

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 1218 of 2021 registered at Sangola Police Station, District : Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 452, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶30

(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Sajakali Jamadar

Sanjay Masu Thengal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Masu Thengal v. the 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

Vijayalaxmi Kishor Thakur vs State of Maharashtra

Mohanlal Megaram Bishnoi vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Machindra Karale vs State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Dalmia (Nee Pallavi Agarwal) vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangram Dadasaheb Mali vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaspi Mehmud Khan @ Vasim Chikna and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra