Neeraj Ajaykumar Gupta vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Neeraj Ajaykumar Gupta vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed and disposed of: applicant enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 25 of 2025 (Parvati Police Station, Pune) on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; conditions — attendance at the concerned police station as and when required; no tampering with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case; no contact with the first informant and prosecution witnesses. All pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 25 of 2025 registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court ordered that the applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 25 of 2025 registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune, on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

Having heard both learned counsel and perused the charge-sheet, the Court recorded that at the time of incident the victim was more than 17 years old, that there appears to have been an affair between the applicant and the victim, that after the alleged incident the victim remained in contact with the applicant, and that the applicant is a student whose educational life would be ruined if he remains behind bars; on these facts the Court passed the order granting bail.

Key takeaways

Bail conditions imposed: the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required; shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case; and shall not contact the first informant and prosecution witnesses.ratio¶27
The observations in the order are made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Bail Application No. 3748 of 2025 — Neeraj Ajaykumar Gupta v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. — decided on 24 April 2026 by Justice Shivkumar Dige. The applicant sought regular bail in Crime No. 25 of 2025 registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; the charge-sheet had been filed. Counsel for the applicant contended that the victim was around 17 years old at the time of incident, the physical relationship was consensual, contact continued thereafter, and the 20-year-old student applicant's education would be ruined in custody; counsel for the State and Respondent No.2 contended the victim was 18 years old, that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted and compelled to have sexual relation with the co-accused, and that bail risked absconding or threats to the victim and prosecution witnesses. Perusing the charge-sheet, the Court recorded that the victim was more than 17 years old at the time of incident, an affair appeared to exist between applicant and victim, post-incident contact persisted, and the student-applicant's educational life would be ruined in detention; on these facts it enlarged the applicant on bail on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, imposing conditions of attendance at the police station as and when required, prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant, witnesses or connected persons, and prohibition on contacting the first informant and prosecution witnesses. The Court expressly confined its observations to the bail purpose, leaving the Trial Court to decide the case on merits uninfluenced; the application was allowed and disposed of.

12-BA-3748-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3748 OF 2025

Neeraj Ajaykumar Gupta … Applicant versus State Of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

SONALISATISHKILAJE Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJEDate:2026.04.2811:15:58+0700

Mr. Shailesh Kharat (Through VC) a/w. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. P.P.Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. Ms. Rajdeepa Madhavi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. API – Namade, Parvati Police Station, Pune City, present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 24^th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 25 of 2025 registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 70(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS Act”) and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

It is prosecution’s case that the applicant developed friendship with the first informant and sexually assaulted her against her will by threatening to make her obscene pictures and videos viral. It is alleged that thereafter, applicant compelled the victim to have sexual relations

Page 1 of 3

12-BA-3748-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

with the co-accused as well.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of incident, the victim was around 17 years old and the physical relationship between her and the applicant were consensual. After the incident, the first informant was in touch with the applicant. The applicant is 20 years old. He is a student. If he remains behind the bars, his educational life will be ruined. Hence, requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the applicant repeatedly sexually assaulted the first informant and thereafter, compelled the victim to have sexual relation with the co-accused. At the time of incident, victim was 18 years old. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the victim and prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. At the time of incident, victim was more than 17 years old and it appears that there was affair between the applicant and victim. After the alleged incident, victim was in contact with the applicant. The applicant is a student. If he remains behind bars, his educational life will be ruined. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

Page 2 of 3

12-BA-3748-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

ORDER

i. The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 25

of 2025 registered with Parvati Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

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

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

iv. The applicant shall not contact the first informant and prosecution witnesses.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, 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