Shyam Narayan Levde vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Shyam Narayan Levde vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Shyam S/o Narayan Levde ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.559/2024 (Gangakhed Police Station, Dist. Parbhani) for offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(i), 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act, on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each, subject to conditions: (a) not to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner; (b) to attend each and every effective date before the Trial Court; (c) not to indulge in criminal activity. Remuneration of appointed advocate Mr. Akash E. Madne (for respondent no.2) fixed at Rs.10,000/-, payable by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee. Application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant (aged 22 years) in Crime No.559/2024, Gangakhed Police Station (offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(i), 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act), in view of the victim and her father not supporting the prosecution case at trial and the victim's affidavit of no objection. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking the allegations in the FIR as they stand, the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant to the lodge, and during the course of trial she did not support the incident as narrated in the FIR.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant has been in custody for a long period and the evidence of the crucial witnesses is already recorded in the trial, leaving little further custodial investigative value.

Key takeaways

Looking to the period of incarceration suffered by the applicant and the nature of evidence available on record, a case is made out for grant of bail subject to certain conditions; the bail application was accordingly allowed notwithstanding the hostility of the victim, answering the APP's contention that hostility of a minor victim defeats bail under POCSO charges.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted — Shyam S/o Narayan Levde (age 22), Bail Application No.159 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.), dated 10 March 2026. Crime No.559/2024, Gangakhed Police Station, Dist. Parbhani — Sections 64(1), 64(2)(i), 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 of POCSO Act. FIR alleges incident of 30.08.2024; applicant arrested 31.08.2024; charge-sheet filed. During trial in Special (POCSO) Case No.40/2024, the victim (respondent no.2) and her father both did not support the prosecution case, and the victim filed an affidavit before this Court giving no objection to the applicant's release. The Court observed that, even taking the FIR allegations at face value, the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant to the lodge; the applicant had been in custody since long; and the evidence of crucial witnesses was already recorded. Considering the period of incarceration and the nature of evidence, bail was allowed on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- each, with conditions (no tampering with prosecution evidence; attendance on every effective trial date; no criminal activity). Remuneration of appointed advocate Akash E. Madne (for respondent no.2) fixed at Rs.10,000/-. The learned APP had relied on X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SLP(C) No.13378/2024, decided 27.11.2024); the Court did not itself engage with that precedent.

958-ba-159-2026.odt

(1)

2026:BHC-AUG:10496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2026

Shyam S/o Narayan Levde, Age: 22 years, Occ. Agri/Education, R/o. Khadakpura Galli, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District, Parbhani.

..Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Gangakhed Police Station, Tal. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.

XYZ ..Respondents

Mr. Amol Ratan Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. R. R. Tandle, APP for Respondents-State. Mr. S. B. Solanke and Mr. Akash E. Madne (appointed), Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 10^th MARCH, 2026

ORDER:-

The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.559/2024 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2) (i), 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act.

The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by respondent no.2/victim alleging that on 30.08.2024 accused requested her to have friendship with him. Thereafter, he took her to lodge and had forcible sexual intercourse. The investigation progressed in pursuance of

958-ba-159-2026.odt

(2)

aforesaid FIR and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant is arrested on 31.08.2024.

On commencement of trial, respondent no.2/victim examined as witness in Special (POCSO) Case No.40/2024. She did not support prosecution case. She states that she do not know applicant/accused. Even evidence of father of respondent no.2 is recorded in trial, but he did not support case of prosecution. The respondent no.2 has filed her affidavit before this Court giving no objection to release applicant on bail.

The learned Advocate appearing for applicant submits that in all seven witnesses have been examined during course of trial. Considering evidence of victim and her father, there is no chance of conviction and, therefore, applicant be released on bail.

The learned APP vehemently opposes application. She would submit that merely because minor victim has turned hostile or settled dispute, there is no reason to grant bail when charge is for offence under POCSO Act. She relies upon judgment and order passed by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ( Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378/2024 decided on 27.11.2024 ).

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

958-ba-159-2026.odt

(3)

applicant is aged 22 years. Even taking allegations in FIR as it is, it appears that victim had voluntarily accompanied him to lodge. During course of trial, she has not supported incident as narrated in FIR. The applicant is behind bar since long. The evidence of crucial witnesses is already recorded in trial. Looking the period of incarceration suffered by applicant and nature of evidence available on record, case is made out for grant of bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) The applicant, Shyam S/o Narayan Levde be released on bail in Crime No.559/2024 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(i), 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) each on following condition:

a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

b. The applicant shall attend each and every effective date before the Trial Court.

c. The applicant shall not indulge in criminal activity.

958-ba-159-2026.odt

(4)

(iii) The remuneration of Mr. Akash E. Madne, learned Advocate appointed to represent cause of respondent no.2 is fixed to Rs.10,000/-. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services SubCommittee is requested to pay the same accordingly.

(iv) Application is disposed of.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

Devendra/March-2026