Nitin Ashok Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Nitin Ashok Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 (Panchavati Police Station, District Nashik) on executing a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; subject to attending the concerned police station as and when required, not entering Panchavati Police Station jurisdiction till recording of evidence of the first informant and victims (except for court dates), and not tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case.

¶order closing ¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 registered with Panchavati Police Station, District Nashik, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶judgment para 1

Court's answer

Regular bail granted: although the allegations are of outraging modesty of the first informant's daughters, the applicant has been behind bars for more than three months, the investigation is completed, the charge sheet has been filed and he has no antecedents; considering these facts the applicant was enlarged on bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶judgment para 5

Ratio / Principle

Bail made subject to conditions: the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required; shall not enter the jurisdiction of Panchavati Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant and victims except for attending court dates; and shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

Key takeaways

Clarification that the observations in the order were made only for the purpose of granting bail, and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by those observations.obiter¶judgment para 6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted. Nitin Ashok Sonawane applied for regular bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 registered with Panchavati Police Station, District Nashik, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution alleging he outraged the modesty of three daughters of the first informant. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.; order dated 4 March 2026) allowed the application: the applicant had been behind bars for more than three months, the investigation was completed, the charge sheet filed, and he had no antecedents. He was enlarged on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, on conditions: attendance at the concerned police station as and when required; no entry into Panchavati Police Station jurisdiction till recording of evidence of the first informant and victims except for court dates; and no tampering with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned. Respondent-side counsel contended that the applicant's father had filed a false complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the first informant and her family to counter the FIR, and feared further false complaints upon release; counsel for the applicant noted one of the victims is married to him and stays with him. The Court clarified that its observations were made only for the purpose of granting bail and would not influence the Trial Court, which is to decide the case on its own merits.

11-BA-240-2026.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2026

Nitin Ashok Sonawane Versus

… Applicant/s

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondent/s

Mr. Aniket Nikam along with Ms. Abhilasha Pawar and Mr. Sumit Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Amol A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 4^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 registered with Panchavati Police Station, District Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is prosecution’s case that the applicant outraged the modesty of three daughters of the first informant.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.03.06 18:30:48 +0530

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than three months. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no

Page 1 of 3

11-BA-240-2026.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

antecedents. One of the victims is married with the applicant and she is staying with the applicant. Hence requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, that the father of the applicant has filed false complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the first informant and her entire family members to counter the present FIR. If the applicant is released on bail, he may file false complaint against the first informant and her family members and requested to reject the application.

I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant are of outraging modesty of daughters of the first informant. The applicant is behind bars for more than three months. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no antecedents. Considering these facts I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 555 of 2025 registered with Panchavati Police Station, District Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Page 2 of 3

11-BA-240-2026.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Panchavati Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant and vicitms, except for attending the court dates.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3