Lingappa Somana Bengali vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Lingappa Somana Bengali vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; Applicant to be enlarged on bail in connection with CR No.844 of 2024 (Powai Police Station) on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the condition that he shall not tamper with or interfere with the prosecution evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, arrested for offences under Section 351(2) BNS 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 POCSO Act in CR No.844 of 2024 and opposed on account of the serious nature of the crime, ought to be released on bail. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the FIR was not lodged by the mother of the victim boy but by his aunt; this is relevant because the NC complaint was lodged by the mother against her just before the lodging of the FIR, and the Court found it difficult to accept at that stage that the victim boy disclosed the alleged incident to the aunt but not to the mother.

Key takeaways

In light of the informant's identity and the antecedent NC complaint, the unexplained delay in lodging the report assumes importance.ratio¶¶15
In any case, the Applicant has been in jail for over one year and six months and the charge has not been framed.ratio¶¶15
Owing to the pendency before the Trial Court there is no possibility of commencement and conclusion of the trial in a reasonable period of time, and the Applicant cannot be kept behind the bars by way of pre-trial sentence.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Criminal Bail Application No.3714 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R. M. Joshi J., decided 17th April 2026. Applicant Lingappa Somana Bengali, step-father of the minor victim boy, sought bail in CR No.844 of 2024 (Powai Police Station, dated 18.10.2024) for offences punishable under S.351(2) BNS 2023 and Ss.8 & 12 POCSO Act 2012; arrested 18.10.2024; charge-sheet filed but charge not framed. Defence relied on an NC report lodged against the informant (dated 16.09.2024) alleging grievance and possibility of false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, and custody exceeding one year and six months. Prosecution/Respondent No.2 opposed citing the serious nature of the crime and the victim's statement recorded under S.183 BNSS by the Magistrate. Court prima facie observed that the FIR was lodged by the victim's aunt, not his mother, although the mother had lodged an NC complaint against her just before the FIR; found it difficult to accept the victim disclosed the incident to the aunt but not the mother, so the unexplained delay assumed importance; noted custody of over 1 year 6 months, non-framing of charge, and no realistic prospect of the trial commencing and concluding in a reasonable time — the Applicant could not be kept behind bars as pre-trial sentence. Application ALLOWED: release on PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in like amount, on condition of not tampering with or interfering with prosecution evidence. Observations expressly prima facie and confined to the application, trial court to decide uninfluenced.

26_BA_3714_2025.DOC

Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3714 OF 2025

Lingappa Somana Bengali …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Respondents

Ms. Jyoti Pangerkar a/w Mohan Raut, for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Ghag , APP for the Respondent - State. Mr. Nasim Khan , for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 17^th APRIL, 2026.

PC:-

The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with CR No.844 of 2024 dated 18^th October, 2024, registered with Powai Police Station, District Mumbai, for offence punishable under Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The First Informant has reported the incident occurred that with the nephew that on 13^th October, 2024 wherein the Applicant who is step-father of the victim boy, inappropriately touched him. Specific allegations are mentioned in the FIR. In connection with crime the Applicant came to be arrested on 18^th October, 2024. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

Page 1 of 3 17^th April, 2026.

26_BA_3714_2025.DOC

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Informant has a grievance against the Applicant and the wife of the Applicant i.e. the mother of the victim boy. To support this submission, she placed reliance on NC report lodged against the Informant dated 16^th September, 2024. It is argued that there is delay in lodging of the Report and considering the NC lodged against the Informant, the possibility of false implication exists. It is her further submission that the Applicant is in jail for over a period of one year and six months however till date charge has not been framed.

Learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed the application. It is their contention that having regard to the serious nature of crime, Applicant is not entitled for bail. In this regard, reference is made to the statement of the victim boy recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS by the Magistrate. On these among other contentions rejection of application is sought.

Prima facie perusal fo the record indicates that the FIR has not been lodged by the mother of the victim boy but by the aunt of the victim boy. This becomes relevant in view of the fact that NC complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim against her just before the lodging of the FIR. It is difficult to accept this at this stage that the victim boy was able to disclose the alleged incident to the aunt but not to the mother. In light of these facts, the unexplained delay in lodging of report assumes importance. In In any case, the Applicant is in jail over a period of one year and six months. The charge has not been framed. Owing to the

Page 2 of 3 17^th April, 2026.

26_BA_3714_2025.DOC

pendency before the Trial Court, there is no possibility of commencement and conclusion of the trial in a reasonable period of time. The Applicant cannot be kept behind the bars by way of pretrial sentence. Hence, following order is passed.

ORDER

i) The Bail Application stands allowed.

ii) In connection with CR No.844 of 2024 dated 18^th October, 2024, registered with Powai Police Station, District Mumbai, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with or interfere with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Page 3 of 3 17^th April, 2026.