Manav S/O Dipakrao Sugandhe vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Paratwada, Dist. Amravati and Anr.

permission to delete name of non-applicant no.2, by stating that there is no victim as such in the matter and the first information report is lodged by the Police Official, who is represented by the learned A.P.P.

¶17

In view of the above and at the risk of the applicant, non-applicant no.2 is permitted to be deleted from the array of non-applicants. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶18

The applicant came to be arrested in connection

Rgd.

100626ba669.26

Order

2

with Crime No.291/2026 registered with Paratwada Police Station, Amravati Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 238, 45, 74 read with 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67 and 67[A] of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶24

The first information report was lodged by one Nilesh Digambar Kale attached to Police Station Paratwada, alleging that on 11.04.2026 while he was on patrolling duty, he received confidential information that some obscene photos and videos of girls were posted on Telegram App and it was found that the said videos were is taken without their consent. Accordingly the first information report was registered and applicant came to be arrested.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was implicated on the basis of statement of the co-accused. There is no other material to connect him with the alleged heinous crime. It is submitted that even if the allegations are taken as it is against the applicant, that the

Rgd.

100626ba669.26

Order

3

applicant used to provide room to other accused, however, he is not involved in taking photos and videos in an objectionable manner and making them viral. He prays that since the applicant is a student aged 20 years, he be released on bail.

¶31

On the other hand the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the applicant is the friend of the main accused namely Ayan Ahmed. The applicant has taken money from the accused persons for providing room so that the main accused can use the said premises for making nude videos of girls, including minors. The said material was made viral on Telegram App. The learned A.P.P. further submits that investigation is still going on and charge sheet is yet to be filed, therefore, considering the role played by the applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶32

I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the first information was registered by the police constable. It appears from the record that the main accused is one Ayan Ahmed. It further appears that there is no statement of any victim which goes to show that the applicant has

Rgd.

100626ba669.26

Order

4

provided the premises for such act. It appears that the applicant is of 20 years of age and is pursuing his studies. His examinations are scheduled from 20.06.2026. It is further to be noted that though the first information report was lodged on 13.04.2026, till date no material is collected against the applicant by the investigating agency. It is only on the basis of statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible, the applicant is implicated. In such circumstances, considering the fact that the applicant is 20 years of age and pursuing his studies, coupled with the fact that his examinations are scheduled from 20.06.2026, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence, the following order.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶40

(ii) The applicant – Manav Dipakrao Sugandhe be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.291/2026 registered with Paratwada Police Station, Amravati Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 238, 45, 74 read with 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 8, 12 and 17 of the

Rgd.

100626ba669.26

Order

5

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67 and 67[A] of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.

¶46

(iii)

¶47

The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶48

(iv)

¶49

The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.

¶50

(v)

¶51

The accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m, till commencement of the trial and further shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.

¶52

(vii)

¶53

The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial.

¶54

(viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Rgd. Date: 11/06/2026 19:36:32

Manav S/O Dipakrao Sugandhe v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Paratwada, Dist. Amravati and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manav S/O Dipakrao Sugandhe v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Paratwada, Dist. Amravati 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

Similar cases

Vidyawati Rampal Sahu vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Police Station Lakadganj Nagpur

Bharat Vishwasrao Lahudkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Pimpalgaon Raja, Police Station, Dist. Buldhana and Anr.

Ameernawaz S/O Naim Khan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ramnagar, Dist Chandrapur

Saurabh Dinesh Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Gittikhadan, Nagpur

Saurabh Dinesh Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Gittikhadan, Nagpur

Pradip Maheshwarprasad Diwedi vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Allipur and Anr.