1 of 4 19.1-ACB.102.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 102 OF 2025 IN BA/2133/2022 XYZ VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … Mr. Amit Arunkumar Mukhedkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for the Applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Naik for the Respondent–State. 2. By the present application, the Applicant seeks cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No.2–Accused by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Bail Application No.2133 of 2022, arising out of Crime No.386 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 registered with Degloor Police Station, Degloor, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that while 2026:BHC-AUG:24574 2 of 4 19.1-ACB.102.2025 releasing Respondent No.2 on bail by order dated 12.01.2023, this Court had imposed a condition that Respondent No.2–Accused shall not contact the victim or her relatives till the conclusion of the trial. 4. He submits that after his release on bail, Respondent No.2 attempted to threaten the Informant and, therefore, on 08.08.2024, a Non-Cognizable Complaint (N.C.) came to be registered. He further submits that on 22.04.2025, another N.C. came to be registered on similar allegations. It is further contended that a subsequent FIR also came to be registered against Respondent No.2 on allegations that he had uploaded obscene photographs and videos of the victim on Instagram. According to the Applicant, Respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted by this Court and has violated the condition restraining him from contacting the victim and her relatives. In view of the two N.Cs. as well as the subsequent FIR, it is submitted that sufficient grounds exist for cancellation of bail. 5. Learned APP supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant. He submits that despite the condition imposed by this Court, Respondent No.2 threatened the complainant and her relatives, resulting in registration of the two N.Cs. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 uploaded as many as 68 obscene photographs and videos on Instagram, on account of which another FIR came to be registered against him. On these grounds, he prayed for cancellation of 3 of 4 19.1-ACB.102.2025 bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submits that the N.Cs. have been registered only with a view to create grounds for cancellation of bail. He further submits that, insofar as the subsequent crime is concerned, the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and Respondent No.2 has been in custody since 24.06.2025. According to him, the allegations are being relied upon solely for seeking cancellation of the bail granted by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record, including the copies of the N.Cs. and the FIR registered against Respondent No.2. As regards the N.Cs., though they have been recorded, the learned Advocate for the Applicant was unable to point out whether any further proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto before the competent Magistrate. As regards the subsequent FIR, it appears that this Court had already granted bail to Respondent No.2 in respect of the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the POCSO Act. The subsequent FIR appears to arise out of the same relationship between the parties, though additional allegations under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 have been made. 8. It is pertinent to note that the offences invoked under the 4 of 4 19.1-ACB.102.2025 Information Technology Act, 2000 carry a maximum punishment of up to five years' imprisonment. Having regard to the material placed on record and the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that no supervening circumstances have been demonstrated so as to warrant cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No.2. Mere registration of the N.Cs. and the subsequent FIR, in the facts of the present case, is not sufficient to justify cancellation of bail. 9. In view of the above, I find that the Applicant has failed to make out a case for cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No.2. Hence, the application stands dismissed. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef