909-ABA-2298-2025 (CR).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2298 OF 2025 Rajendra Bhagwan Gaikwad …. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …. Respondents ----- Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w Ms. Seema S. Dighe, Mr. Onkar Bajaj, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2025. P.C. : 1. The Applicant is apprehending in C.R. No.566 of 2025 registered with Barshi City Police Station, Dist: Solapur Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 137(2), 333, 62, 351(2) and 351(3) of the of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS Act”), and Sections 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO”). 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 9th July, 2025 around 11:00 a.m. when granddaughter of the first informant was going to the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/4 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2025.09.22 19:27:21 +0530 909-ABA-2298-2025 (CR).doc school at that time, the Applicant caught hold hand of the victim and abused her, threaten and outraged her modesty. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is on going dispute between the father of the victim and Applicant, and present complaint filed out of that dispute. Considering allegations against the Applicant, his custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the Applicant has filed writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. However, in the said writ petition, the Applicant has not disclosed the filing of the present application, despite the fact that the relief sought in both are identical. Learned APP further submitted that the Applicant has three antecedents. Considering allegations against the Applicant, his custodial interrogation is required, and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and documents produced on record. 6. The allegations against the Applicant are that he held the Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/4 909-ABA-2298-2025 (CR).doc hand of the first informant’s granddaughter while going to school and abused, threatened and outraged her modesty. 7. It appears from the record that there is an ongoing land dispute between the Applicant and the victim’s father. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Considering allegations against the Applicant, his custodial interrogation is not required, and I pass following order: ORDER i. The application is allowed. ii. In the event of arrest, the Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.566 of 2025 registered with Barshi City Police Station, Dist: Solapur Rural, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- one or tow sureties in the like amount. iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required. iv. The Applicant shall not enter in the area where the victim stays. v. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/4 909-ABA-2298-2025 (CR).doc witness or any person concerned with the case. vi. The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer. vii. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order and shall decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off. 9. All the concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/4