Ashish Premchand Pandey vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Ashish Premchand Pandey vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant released on bail in C.R.No.668/2024 (Kolsewadi Police Station, Thane) on executing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (ii) attendance at Kolsewadi Police Station, Thane on the 1st day of each calendar month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of trial; (iii) regular attendance before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted for reasons recorded in writing; (iv) not to tamper with prosecution evidence or directly or indirectly influence prosecution witnesses; (v) to reside outside the jurisdiction of Kolsewadi Police Station till the trial concludes, except on dates attendance is required; (vi) to furnish contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and keep them updated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in C.R.No.668/2024 (Kolsewadi Police Station, Thane) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. +2 more

Court's answer

The investigation of the crime is over; the Applicant is not likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence and is already on bail in the earlier crimes.

Ratio / Principle

There is inconsistency as to the victim's age at the time of the offence: the School Bonafide Certificate records her date of birth as 20.11.2010 in figures but as 'Twentieth November Two Thousand Fourteen' in words, the Birth Certificate records 20.11.2010, and the ossification report indicates she was aged 16 to 18 years; the Ossification Test therefore assumes significance.

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the alleged sexual intercourse appears to have been consensual, because after the alleged rape the victim did not raise any shout or call for help during the roughly two hours she roamed with the Applicant, and she sought to check into a hotel where they were denied a room for want of her identity proof.ratio¶¶31
In view of the above findings, the Applicant is entitled to bail, and bail was granted on a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions.ratio¶¶32
By way of abundant caution, the observations in the judgment are confined to the determination of entitlement for bail, may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the Applicant, and the trial Court shall not be influenced by them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.363, 366A, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Ss.4 and 6 – C.R.No.668/2024, Kolsewadi Police Station, Thane – victim's age inconsistent: School Bonafide Certificate records date of birth as 20.11.2010 in figures but as 'Twentieth November Two Thousand Fourteen' in words, Birth Certificate records 20.11.2010, and ossification report indicates age 16 to 18 years – Ossification Test assumes significance – after the alleged rape the victim did not raise any shout or call for help, roamed with the Applicant for about two hours, and attempted to check into a hotel where they were denied a room for want of her identity proof – prima facie, the alleged sexual intercourse appears consensual – investigation complete; Applicant not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence and is on bail in earlier crimes – bail granted on P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties, with conditions including monthly attendance at Kolsewadi Police Station, regular trial attendance, non-tampering, residence outside Kolsewadi Police Station jurisdiction and furnishing contact details – observations confined to bail entitlement and not to be construed as expression of opinion on guilt.