1 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 19 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2004 OF 2025 HANMANT RAJU JABDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anup R. Nikam for the Applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Naik for the Respondent–State and Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate Assist to APP. 2. By the present application, the Applicant seeks his release on regular bail in connection with Crime No.0326 of 2025 registered with Degloor Police Station, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 78(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 66(e) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2025, the Tauseef 2 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025 maternal uncle of the minor victim girl discovered her objectionable photographs on the social media platform Instagram. It is further alleged that the Applicant followed her and persistently insisted on communicating with her, despite her visible reluctance. 4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, insofar as the first crime is concerned, the Applicant has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Bail Application No.2133 of 2022. He submits that, in respect of the same relationship between the parties, another FIR came to be registered alleging that the Applicant had uploaded obscene photographs of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant is presently in custody and, therefore, his further detention is not necessary. He also submits that the victim attained majority in March 2026. 5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. K. K. Naik for Respondent No.1– State and Mr. Mukhedkar, learned Advocate assisting the prosecution, strongly opposed the application. They submit that the Applicant is involved in serious offences. It is further submitted that after being released on bail in the earlier crime, the Applicant allegedly extended threats to the complainant and her relatives, pursuant to which a Non- Cognizable Complaint (N.C.) came to be registered. They submit that an application for cancellation of bail was also moved on that basis; Tauseef 3 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025 however, the same came to be dismissed by this Court today while deciding the present bail application. 6. They further submit that the earlier FIR was registered in respect of an incident that occurred in the year 2022, whereas the present FIR pertains to an incident alleged to have occurred in the year 2023, though the FIR came to be registered in the year 2025. It is contended that, notwithstanding completion of the investigation, the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. On these grounds, they prayed for rejection of the application. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers, particularly the order passed by this Court in Bail Application No.2133 of 2022. As regards the first incident, the Applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The subsequent FIR pertains to an alleged incident of the year 2023, though the complaint came to be lodged in the year 2025. 8. It is needless to state that there cannot be two FIRs in respect of the same incident. The earlier FIR was already registered on the allegations attracting the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, and the Applicant has been granted bail in connection therewith. Tauseef 4 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025 9. The present FIR pertains to the alleged incident of the year 2023, in connection with which the Applicant is in custody since 25.06.2025. The investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that further detention of the Applicant is not warranted. Considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings, the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, the following order:- ORDER I. The application is allowed. II. Applicant – Hanmant Raju Jabde be released on bail in connection with Crime No.0326 of 2025 registered with Degloor Police Station, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 78(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 66(e) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: Tauseef 5 of 5 19-BA.2004.2025 (a) The Applicant shall not enter District Nanded till conclusion of the trial, except for attending the proceedings before the concerned Court. (b) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every effective date, unless specifically exempted by the Trial Court. (c) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (d) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be open for the prosecution or the complainant to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on its own merits. IV. Bail before the learned Trial Court. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef