IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 939 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1145 OF 2025 PRASHANT SUKHDEV VIDHATE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Ms. Sakshi Dushing h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicant Mr. R. B. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for respondent/State WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2025 SUSHANT SUKHDEV VIDHATE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Ms. Avantika S. Kharade h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicant Mr. R. B. Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. During the course of hearing, this Court is informed that the charge- sheet has been filed upon completion of the investigation in connection with Crime No. 203 of 2025, registered with Ahilyanagar Camp Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 118(1), 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 12 of the 939 ABA 1145.2025.odt 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:36959 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicants submit that, having regard to the nature of the allegations against the applicants and the fact that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation, the interim relief deserves to be confirmed. 3. Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 oppose the confirmation of the interim relief by referring to the allegations against the applicants as well as the nature of the crime. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that, while granting interim relief, this Court had taken into consideration the allegations against the present applicants. After considering the same, interim relief was granted. There is no grievance on the part of the prosecution that the applicants have not cooperated with the investigation. Having regard to the said fact, as well as the fact that the investigation is over upon filing of the charge-sheet, this Court finds no justification for not confirming the interim relief. Hence, the applications stand allowed in terms of the interim orders. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 939 ABA 1145.2025.odt 2 of 2