Dismissed¶10

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2026BA/3716/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; father accused of sexual assault on minor daughter (age 10 years 8 months); Crime No. 81 of 2025, Palus Police Station, District Sangli; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss. 64(2), 65(2), 351(2), 351(3); POCSO Act 2012 Ss. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10; chargesheet filed, trial progressing; medical examination report supports prosecution; prima facie overwhelming evidence; seriousness of offence paramount; delay not a ground; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (2004) 7 SCC 528; Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751; Bombay High Court Kolhapur; Sachin S. Deshmukh J.; decided 06.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Taking the material collected by the prosecution on record, a prima facie case is made out indicating involvement of the applicant; the prosecution has prima facie collected overwhelming evidence against him.

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, charged along with others under Sections 64(2) etc. of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No. 81 of 2025 for alleged sexual assault on his minor daughter, should be released on regular bail.

¶1

Court's answer

¶6

Ratio / Principle

While considering bail in serious offences, the Court must treat vital considerations like nature of charge and nature of offence as paramount.

¶8

Key takeaways

Delay cannot assist the applicant here: the trial is progressing, the prosecution has demonstrated efforts to conclude it, and considering the seriousness of the offences the overwhelming material weighs against the applicant.ratio¶7
The medical examination prima facie supports the prosecution case of sexual assault involving the accused's own minor daughter; therefore the bail application does not warrant consideration.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Bail Application No. 3716 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench, Sachin S. Deshmukh J., 6 March 2026) - Regular bail sought by the father of a girl aged 10 years 8 months, accused in Crime No. 81 of 2025 (Palus Police Station, District Sangli, FIR dated 21.05.2025) under Sections 64(2), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(j), 64(2)(m), 65(2), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2), 5(1), 5(m), 5(n), 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for alleged sexual assault on his own minor daughter. The victim disclosed that the accused established physical relations with her during night hours and threatened her not to disclose. Chargesheet filed; trial progressing. Applying Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, State of UP v. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751, the Court found a prima facie case indicating the applicant's involvement, noted that the medical examination report supports the prosecution case, treated the nature of charge and seriousness of the offence (punishable with 20 years) as paramount, and held that the overwhelming material weighs against the applicant. Bail application dismissed.

¶1

1 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3716 OF 2025

¶5

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ramanik Pawar, Advocate i/b Mr. Amit Waykool, Advocate for Applicant

¶7

Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent/State

¶8

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

¶9

DATE : 6^th MARCH, 2026.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 81 of 2025 dated 21.05.2025 registered with Palus Police Station, District Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(j), 64(2)(m), 65(2), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2), 5(1), 5(m), 5(n), 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶12

The informant is mother of the victim having age of 10 years, 8 months. The accused is the father of the victim. The informant, the

¶13

1 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶14

2 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶15

victim, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and son are residing together. The accused is a labour. The victim is prosecuting studies. On 23.03.2025, the informant alongwith the victim had gone to her parental home in Pune district. The victim was after appearing for exam was taken to Palus. On 01.05.2025, the informant did not find the victim in the house and met the victim in the house of her sister-inlaw on 02.05.2025. At that time, the victim narrated her that she should not be taken to the house and she felt fear of her father. When the informant insisted for returning to home and inquired her, she told her that the accused had established physical relations with her by taking her away during night hours. According to the victim, the accused again established physical relations at about 08.00 p.m. and threatened not to disclose.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of informant’s step-sister. It is further submitted that investigation is complete and chargesheet is filed. Hence, prayed to allow the application.

¶17

Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed this application, submitting that applicant is the father of the victim and is alleged to have committed the sexual assault involving his own minor

¶18

2 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶19

3 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶20

daughter. The medical examination report supports the case of prosecution. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for State, the applicant is facing the charge of sexual assault which is punishable with 20 years imprisonment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors.

¶22

[(2004)7 SCC 528] , while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences, has observed as under :

¶23

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

¶24

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

¶25

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

¶26

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)”

¶27

Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of UP

¶28

3 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶29

4 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶30

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] , has held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible and supports the accusations, bail may be refused. As stated earlier, the prosecution has prima facie collected overwhelming evidence against the present applicant.

¶31

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar [(2017)13 SCC 751] , has held that delay especially in cases involving serious offences, cannot by itself be a ground for bail. In the present case, the trial is progressing and further the prosecution has demonstrated the efforts to conclude the trial. Considering the seriousness of the offences involved, the overwhelming material weighs against the applicant.

¶32

Taking into account the material available on record collected by the prosecution, a prima facie case is made out indicating involvement of the applicant. The Apex Court has consistently reiterated that while considering the bail application in serious offences, the Court must treat vital considerations like nature of charge and nature of offence as paramount.

¶33

4 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶34

5 14-BA-3716-25.doc

¶35

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and particularly the medical examination prima facie supports the prosecution case involving his own minor daughter of the accused in sexual assault, therefore I am of the considered opinion that the application does not warrant consideration.

¶36

Resultantly, the bail application stands dismissed.

¶37

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶38

zip

¶39

5 14-BA-3716-25.doc

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramchandra Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irfan Munir Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakant Kedari Shelake vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akshay Alias Chivlya Sanjay Bodare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Jagannath Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratnakar Alias Namdev Siddheshwar Dalavi vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratnakar @ Namdev Siddheshwar Dalawe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.