Shahrukh Akhatar Ansari vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

Shahrukh Akhatar Ansari vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 279 of 2025 (Bhadrakali Police Station, District Nashik) on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to attending the concerned police station as and when required, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing/contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No. 279 of 2025 (registered under Sections 64, 74, 137(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012).

Court's answer

Regular bail granted, the court being moved by the seven-month delay in lodging the complaint, the victim being more than 16 years old, the applicant having no antecedents, and his remaining behind bars for more than six months.

Ratio / Principle

Absence of progress in the trial was an additional fact taken into account in ordering the applicant's enlargement on bail.

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are confined to the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by those observations.obiter¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Bail Application No. 4782 of 2025 — Shivkumar Dige, J. — 4 March 2026. Regular bail granted to Shahrukh Akhatar Ansari in Crime No. 279 of 2025 of Bhadrakali Police Station, District Nashik, registered for offences under Sections 64, 74, 137(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution alleging sexual assault of the first informant by threatening to make viral the photographs taken with her. Bail granted on consideration of: seven-month delay in lodging the complaint; victim being more than 16 years old; applicant having no antecedents; detention exceeding six months; and no progress in the trial. Release ordered on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, with conditions of police-station attendance and non-tampering/non-contact with complainant and witnesses; observations expressly confined to bail purposes only, leaving the trial to be decided uninfluenced by them.

5-BA-4782-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4782 OF 2025

Shahrukh Akhatar Ansari … Applicant/s Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondent/s

_________________________________________________________________ Mr. Mihir N. Kasliwal i/b. Mr. Rahul Kasliwal, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Pratik Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 4^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 279 of 2025 registered with Bhadrakali Police Station, District Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 74, 137(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is prosecution’s case that the applicant sexually assaulted the first informant by threatening to make viral the photographs taken by him with her.

SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM

Digitally signed by 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: delay of seven months in lodging the complaint. At the time of the 2026.03.06 11:08:02 +0530 incident, the victim was 16 years old. There is no medical evidence about

Page 1 of 3

5-BA-4782-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

sexual assault. The applicant is behind bars for more than six months. He has no antecedents and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the first informant was minor. The applicant was aware about her age. The applicant took selfies with the first informant and by threatening her that he will make viral the selfies, assaulted her sexually by taking her to lodge. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

I have heard all learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. There is delay of seven months in lodging the complaint. The victim is more than 16 years old. The applicant has no antecedents. He is behind bars for more than six months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order :

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 279 of 2025 registered with Bhadrakali Police Station, District Nashik, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

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

Page 2 of 3

5-BA-4782-2025.doc

Shubhada S Kadam

(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.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly 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