Dismissed¶¶18

Vishal Vikram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Apr 2025IA/1126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail condition modification refused — Bombay HC dismisses IA No.1126/2025 in BA No.1602/2024 (Vishal Vikram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 10-06-2025, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) seeking relaxation of Condition No.(iv) of bail order dated 18-06-2024 (IPC 1860 and POCSO Act 2012 offences) to reside with family in Nashik; grounds: condition imposed for victim protection, no change in circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The Court is in agreement with the contentions of the learned APP: there is no change in the circumstances which would enable the Applicant to seek modification, and the bail condition is therefore not relaxed or modified. ¶¶17

Vishal Vikram Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

Priya Soparkar 1 6 ia 1126-25 in ba 1602-24-cr.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1126 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2024

¶6

Vishal Vikram Jadhav … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Prashant Daulatrao Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Ashwini A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2025.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Heard Mr. Prashant Daulatrao Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Ashwini A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶11

By the present application, the Applicant has sought for the following prayer:-

¶12

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to relax or modify the Condition No.(iv) of the Order dated 18/06/2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Bail Application No.1602 of 2024.”

¶13

By order dated 18^th June, 2024, this Court had enlarged the Applicant on bail for the offences which include offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

¶14

Priya Soparkar 2 6 ia 1126-25 in ba 1602-24-cr.doc

¶15

Mr. Prashant Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant states that his family is residing in District of Nashik and the Applicant intends to visit and reside with his family in Nashik, as such the Applicant seeks modification of the Bail Condition No.(iv).

¶16

Learned APP states that the family of the Applicant was residing in Nashik even on the date when the order allowing the Criminal Bail Application No.1602 of 2024 was passed. She submits that the Bail Condition No.(iv) was imposed by this Court so as to ensure protection to the victim. She submits that there is no change in circumstances warranting modification of any the bail condition.

¶17

I am in agreement with the contentions of the learned APP. There are no change in the circumstances which would enable the Applicant for modification.

¶18

In view of the above, the Interim Application No.1126 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶19

( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Vishal Vikram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Vikram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhushan Sanjay Edake vs the State of Maharashtra

Shreyas Manik Tonape vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shashikant Bhanudas Rawade vs State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Reddy vs the State of Maharashtra

Onkar Kailas Mohite vs State of Maharashtra

Shreyas Manik Tonape vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.