Rohit Alias Gautam Nanasaheb Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 174 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025, registered with Ashwi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶16

This Court, vide order dated 13.11.2025, granted interim protection in favour of the applicant with directions to attend the

¶17

1/5

¶18

Jhs/

¶19

42 ABA NO. 1992 OF 2025

¶20

Investigating Officer on specified dates and time and to cooperate with the investigation.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has complied with all the conditions imposed by this Court vide interim order dated 13.11.2025 and has cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that the investigation is now complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any further conditions that may be imposed by this Court and accordingly prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

As against this, learned APP as well as Ms. Nikita Ragade, learned appointed counsel for respondent No.2–Victim, vehemently oppose the present application contending that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of sexual exploitation and harassment of a minor boy. It is submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may threaten the victim or his family and thereby prejudice the prosecution case. The applicant being a resident of the same area, there is every likelihood of disturbance to law and order. Hence, it is submitted that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶23

2/5

¶24

Jhs/

¶25

42 ABA NO. 1992 OF 2025

¶26

I have perused the charge-sheet which now stands filed against the present applicant. Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the applicant has attended the Investigating Officer. The statement of the complainant has been recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corroborating the allegations in the FIR. The statement of another witness, namely Samarth Ganesh Pabal, a friend of the complainant, has also been recorded. The entire investigation appears to have been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. The applicant has complied with the directions issued by this Court vide interim order dated 13.11.2025. The learned APP also does not dispute that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation. Land Survey No. 180 belongs to the applicant, Rohit alias Gautam Nanasaheb Jadhav, and his family, whereas Land Survey No. 178 of village Panodi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar, belongs to the informant and his family. Thus, the allegation that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime on account of a land dispute between the applicant’s family and the complainant’s family appears to be plausible, as the map of Survey Nos. 178 and 180 shows that the said lands are situated adjacent to each other. The 7/12 extracts of Survey Nos. 178 and 180 also corroborate the grounds raised by the applicant. The apprehension

¶27

3/5

¶28

Jhs/

¶29

42 ABA NO. 1992 OF 2025

¶30

expressed by the learned APP and the learned appointed counsel regarding possible intimidation of the victim and his family can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to protect the present applicant.

¶31

Hence, the following order is passed :-

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

A) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶34

B) The interim order dated 13.11.2025 is hereby confirmed, with an additional condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned police station and report to the Investigating Officer as and when required, till framing of charge by the learned Trial Court.

¶35

C) The applicant shall not enter village Panodi till framing of charge by the learned Trial Court, except with prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶36

D) The applicant shall furnish an alternate residential address outside village Panodi to the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶37

E) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

¶38

F) The Applicant shall also cooperate with the investigation.

¶39

4/5

¶40

Jhs/

¶41

42 ABA NO. 1992 OF 2025

¶42

G) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.

¶43

H) The applicant shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along with the addresses and mobile numbers of two nearest relatives.

¶44

Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶45

The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court or any other Court while deciding the case on its own merits.

¶46

Fees of the learned appointed counsel, Ms. Nikita Ragade, representing respondent No.2–Victim, shall be paid as per the schedule of fees maintained by the Sub-Committee of the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, expeditiously.

¶47

In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.

¶48

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶49

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

¶50

5/5

¶51

Jhs/

Rohit Alias Gautam Nanasaheb Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Alias Gautam Nanasaheb Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shaikh Abdul Mujahid Shaikh Abdul Wahed vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rushikesh Santosh Palodkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanuman Bapurao Renge and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Dilip Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Sahebrao Jagtap and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Maruti Sida More vs Laxman Sahebrao Jagtap and Another