Dismissed¶¶28

Amol Dattu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026ABA/51/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 482 BNSS; BNS 2023 Sections 137(2), 64, 64(2)(m), 92, 142, 351(1)(2); POCSO Act Sections 4, 5(1), 6; FIR Crime No.309 of 2025, Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna; fresh FIR No.77/2026; misuse/vacation of interim protection granted 13.01.2026; abduction of victim girl; CCTV footage in pen-drive; threats to victim and family; order dated 13.03.2026; applicant AMOL DATTU JADHAV; MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; decision date 24.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail, because the applicant misused the interim protection granted on 13.01.2026 by abducting the victim girl despite stringent observations of the Court in its order dated 13.03.2026. ¶¶26

Amol Dattu Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with FIR Crime No.309 of 2025 (Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna) for offences under BNS 2023 and the POCSO Act. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the CCTV footage produced by the learned PP and FIR No.77/2026 registered at Gondi Police Station, the Court found the applicant had no regard for the rule of law and for the orders passed by the Court, and had failed to make out any case for interference.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The Court held this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and rejected the Anticipatory Bail Application.ratio¶¶28
The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 13.01.2026 stands vacated.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 51 of 2026 filed by AMOL DATTU JADHAV before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.; decided 24.03.2026), seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with FIR Crime No.309 of 2025 registered at Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64, 64(2)(m), 92, 142, 351(1)(2) of BNS 2023 and Sections 4, 5(1), 6 of the POCSO Act, was REJECTED. Interim protection had been granted vide order dated 13.01.2026 on the applicant's statement that he had married the victim and the relationship was consensual, subject to attending the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the investigation. Despite stringent observations in the Court's order dated 13.03.2026 against extending threats to the victim and her family, the learned Public Prosecutor reported that the applicant abducted the victim girl; CCTV footage produced by the Government Pleader and viewed by the Court clearly showed forcible abduction at the instance of the applicant, and a fresh FIR No.77/2026 was registered against the applicant and five unknown accused persons. Finding misuse of interim protection and no regard for the rule of law or the Court's orders, the Court declined to exercise powers under Section 482 BNSS, held the application not fit for grant of anticipatory bail, rejected it, and vacated the interim relief granted on 13.01.2026.

¶1

¶2

51.26ABA

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:12986

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

963 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 51 OF 2026

¶6

AMOL DATTU JADHAV VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.P.A.Shendge PP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.B.Girase, P.P. along with Mr.R.K.Ingole, APP

¶9

Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr.P.C.Bhagure

¶10

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 24.03.2026

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶13

2] The applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.309 of 2025, registered with Gondi Police Station Dist.Jalna, for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 64, 64 (2)(m), 92, 142, 351 (1)(2) of BNS, 2023 and 4, 5 (1), 6 of POCSO Act.

¶14

¶15

51.26ABA

¶16

3] This Court, vide order dated 13.01.2026, had protected the applicant with direction to attend the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation by considering the fact that the applicant had made a statement that he has already married with the victim girl and relationship of the applicant with the victim girld was consensual.

¶17

4] The matter was thereafter listed on 13^th March, 2026. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application. The learned APP had also informed this Court about non-cooperation of the applicant despite the interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026. However, by way of indulgence, this Court has again directed the applicant to remain present on particular dates and fixed time and cooperate with the investigation. This Court had taken note of the allegations of threat being extended to the victim and the family members of the victim and has observed that any further complaint of threats by the applicant to the victim

¶18

¶19

51.26ABA

¶20

and her family members would be taken serious note of, on the next date of hearing.

¶21

5] The learned Public Prosecutor appears and informs that despite of stringent observations made by this Court in its order dated 13.03.2026 on the apprehension of the applicant extending threats to the victim and family members of the victim, the applicant has abducted the victim girl. The learned Government Pleader had produced on record the CCTV footage. The said CCTV footage is produced in pen-drive and the same is seen by this Court, which clearly shows forcible abduction of the victim girl at the instance of the present applicant.

¶22

6] The learned Public Prosecutor informs that in pursuance to the adduction by the applicant, another Crime being FIR No.77/2026 is registered against the present applicant and other 5 unknown accused persons.

¶23

7] Thus, taking into consideration the material produced on record by the learned PP i.e. the CCTV footage

¶24

¶25

51.26ABA

¶26

and FIR bearing Crime No.77/2026 registered at Gondi Police Station, I am not inclined to exercise the powers under Section 482 o the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The applicant has misused the interim protection granted by this Court despite of the stringent observations of this Court in its order dated 13.03.2026 and has abducted the victim girl. It appears that

¶27

the applicant has no regards to the rule of law and to the orders passed by this Court. The applicant has, thus, failed to make out any case for interference of this Court. This is

¶28

not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is hereby rejected.

¶29

8] The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 13.01.2026 stands vacated.

¶30

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE

¶31

DDC

Amol Dattu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Dattu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Kailas Shivajirao Ghare vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mohit Dattatray Goshik vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suraj Gorakh Bikkad vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Baliram Ambad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shrikant Vilas Kolage vs the State of Maharashtra

Pritam Mohan Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Another