Disposed¶5

Naina Sanjay Rupani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2026BA/3628/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court BA 3628/2025 (S. 483 BNSS 2023), judge R. M. Joshi, decided 6th March 2026. Applicant Naina Sanjay Rupani; C.R. No.1117 of 2024; BNS 2023 Ss. 96, 98, 143(3)(4), 64, 3(5); PITA Ss. 4, 5; POCSO Act Ss. 4, 16, 17, 18; JJ Act 2000 Ss. 81, 87. Trial Court rejection order dated 2nd May 2025 criticised for ignoring merits and for inconsistent treatment of charge-sheet filing as change in circumstance vis-a-vis co-accused; application disposed with liberty for fresh bail application before Trial Court on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Applicant to move a fresh application for grant of bail before the Trial Court; the Trial Court to pass order on such application, if filed, considering the merits of the case. ¶5

Naina Sanjay Rupani vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Applicant to move a fresh application for grant of bail before the Trial Court; the Trial Court to pass order on such application, if filed, considering the merits of the case.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.1117 of 2024, there being, as counsel contends, no statement of the minor Victim indicating her involvement in the alleged crime and the major Victims having recorded their 'No Objection' to the grant of bail. +2 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court did not consider the merits of the case while rejecting the Applicant's bail application.

¶4

Key takeaways

The Court found substance in the contention that the filing of the charge-sheet was considered a change in circumstance in respect of the co-accused, whereas it was not so accepted in the present case.ratio¶4
The application stands disposed of with liberty to the Applicant to move a fresh application for grant of bail before the Trial Court.ratio¶5
The Trial Court is to pass order on such fresh application, if filed, considering the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S. 483 BNSS 2023 by Naina Sanjay Rupani in C.R. No.1117 of 2024 involving offences punishable under Ss. 96, 98, 143(3)(4), 64, 3(5) BNS 2023, read with Ss. 4 and 5 PITA, Ss. 4, 16, 17, 18 POCSO Act and Ss. 81, 87 JJ Act 2000. Counsel contended there was no statement of the minor Victim implicating the Applicant and that the major Victims had recorded 'No Objection'; the Learned APP countered that obtainment of 'No Objection' by itself amounted to interference with prosecution evidence. Finding that the Trial Court's rejection order of 2nd May 2025 did not consider the merits, and that the filing of the charge-sheet was accepted as a change in circumstance for the co-accused but not for the Applicant, the High Court disposed of the application with liberty to the Applicant to seek bail afresh before the Trial Court, which is to pass order on such application, if filed, considering the merits of the case.

¶1

39-BA-3628-2025.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3628 OF 2025

¶5

Naina Sanjay Rupani …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondents

¶6

Ms. Lochan Chandka , for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Ghag , APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 6^th MARCH, 2026.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

This Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the Applicant seeking enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.1117 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 96, 98, 143(3)(4), 64, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘PITA’), Sections 4, 16, 17, 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Sections 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is no statement of the minor Victim indicating the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged crime. Insofar as the other Victims are concerned, it is contended that the said Victims are major and have

¶11

Page 1 of 2 6^th March, 2026.

¶12

39-BA-3628-2025.DOC

¶13

recorded their ‘No Objection’ to the grant of bail to the Applicant. It is his further submission that the Trial Court considered the filing of the charge-sheet as a change in circumstance for entertaining the second bail application of the co-accused, however, refused the bail solely on the said ground. It is his further submission that even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged crime.

¶14

Learned APP opposed the said submission by contending that obtainment of ‘No Objection’ from the Victims by itself amounts to interference with the evidence of the prosecution. He drew attention of the Court to the statements of two witnesses, which clearly show that presence of minor girl along with the two other Victims and the present Applicant. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 also opposed the application.

¶15

Perusal of the order dated 2^nd May 2025 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application indicates that the Trial Court has not considered the merits of the case while rejecting the application. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in respect of co-accused, the filing of the charge-sheet was considered to be a change in circumstance, whereas, it was not so accepted in the present case.

¶16

In view of the same, the application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application for grant of bail before the Trial Court. The Trial Court to pass order on such application, if filed, considering the merits of the case.

¶17

Page 2 of 2 6^th March, 2026.

¶18

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.03.07 15:08:01 +0530

Naina Sanjay Rupani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naina Sanjay Rupani v. the State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash @ Sunny Bhupat Das vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Kumar Gupta @ Vicky vs Union of India and Anr.

Babu @ Kamlesh Gautam Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Arfat Murtuza Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ld. vs Shri. Adinath Narayan Pise and Ors.

Deepak Dharmaraj Gautam vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.