Dismissed¶22

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2025BA/477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application withdrawal; liberty to file fresh bail application; POCSO trial; Special (POCSO) Case No.09 of 2021; Additional Sessions Judge Panvel Raigad; prosecutrix examination-in-chief recorded; cross-examination opportunity closed; recall of victim witness; fresh application to be considered on own merits; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Ashwin D. Bhobe J.; 24 June 2025; Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam v. State of Maharashtra; dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application No.477 of 2025 dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, in Special (POCSO) Case No.09 of 2021 after completion of the evidence of Respondent No.2 (victim); any such fresh application to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant should be permitted to withdraw Bail Application No.477 of 2025 with liberty to move a fresh bail application before the Trial Court after cross-examination of Respondent No.2 (victim).

¶18

Court's answer

Leave granted to withdraw the present bail application, with liberty to file a fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, in Special (POCSO) Case No.09 of 2021 after the completion of the evidence of Respondent No.2 (victim).

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Any fresh bail application filed by the Applicant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.), Bail Application No.477 of 2025, Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., decided 24 June 2025: In a pending Special (POCSO) Case No.09 of 2021 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.2 (prosecutrix/victim) had been recorded but the Applicant had not cross-examined her, the opportunity having been closed. Counsel for the Applicant sought leave to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move a fresh application after the victim's cross-examination. The State (APP Veera Shinde) noted the request was premature pending the recall application but did not oppose renewal after cross-examination. The Court granted leave to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh bail application after completion of the victim's evidence, recording counsel's undertaking that the liberty would be exercised only after cross-examination or after exhausting remedies if the recall application were declined, and directed that any fresh application be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. Bail application dismissed as withdrawn.

¶1

30-ba-477-2025.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.477 OF 2025

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signedby NIKITAKAILAS DARADE Date: 2025.06.2421:10:11 +0530

¶6

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam … Applicant V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar a/w Mr. Abhishek Arote a/w Mr. Yash Saxena a/w Mr. Arun Chavan for the Applicant.

¶9

Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the State.

¶10

Mr. Pandit Pawar, API, Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai.

¶11

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 24^th JUNE, 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant for some time.

¶14

Ms. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State, submits that the Respondent No.2 (prosecutrix) was examined before the Trial Court. Applicant did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent No.2 as such there is not cross-examination on behalf of the Applicant. ]

¶15

Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, on instructions, from the Applicant confirms that the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.2 is recorded and the opportunity of the Applicant to cross-examine the Respondent No.2 was closed. He states that steps will be taken to recall the said witness for cross-examination.

¶16

¶17

30-ba-477-2025.doc

¶18

Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, again on instructions from the Applicant to seek leave to withdraw the present bail application by seeking liberty to move a fresh bail application before the Trial Court after the cross examination of the Respondent No.2 (victim).

¶19

Ms. Veera Shinde, states that the request made by the Applicant is pre-mature as his request to recall the Respondent No.2 is yet to be considered and the same would be dependent on the outcome of the application for recall. She however submits that the Applicant can be permitted to renew his request in the event the Respondent No.2 is recalled and cross-examined.

¶20

In view of the statement made by Mr. Satyam Nimbalkar, leave granted to withdraw the present bail application, with liberty to file a fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, in Special (POCSO) Case No.09 of 2021 after the completion of the evidence of the Respondent No.2 (victim). Mr. Nimbalkar states that this liberty will be resorted to only after cross-examination of the Respondent No.2 and/or after the Applicant availing all remedies available to the Applicant in the event the recall application is declined by the Trial Court.

¶21

If any fresh application for bail is filed by the Applicant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, Raigad, the same would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶22

Bail Application No.477 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above.

¶23

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE. J.)

¶24

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karimsha Ahmad Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayesh Balakrishna Natu vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Krishna Lokare vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Rupesh Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra

Zuby Ifeanyi Udoka vs State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Dilip Balwadkar vs State of Maharashtra