11.appln.124.25 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPLN] No.124 of 2025 “XYZ” Victim in Spl. Case No.84/2025 vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur and another =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (Appointed) for the Applicant. Mr. H.D. Dhande, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1. Mr. Manish Perke, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2 026. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. appearing for non-applicant No.1/State and the learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No.2. 02. By the present application, the applicant/victim seeks cancellation of the bail granted to non-applicant No.2 by order dated 15/07/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No.84/2025, in connection with Crime No.436/2024 registered with Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’). 03. It is a matter of record that, on 09/12/2024, the present applicant/victim lodged a report with Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur, alleging that, although she was aware of the extra-marital relationship between her mother and non-applicant No.2/accused, she did not disclose the same to anyone, as she was always frightened of the conduct of non-applicant No.2. It is further alleged that on several occasions, non- applicant No.2 had pressed her breasts and kissed her four to five times. 2026:BHC-NAG:11897 11.appln.124.25 2/4 However, she did not disclose the said facts to anyone due to the threats extended by non-applicant No.2. It is further alleged that, sometime in August, 2023, while she was proceeding to her school, non-applicant No.2 stalked her and also threatened her. 04. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.436/2024 came to be registered against non-applicant No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. On 10/02/2025, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and enlarged non-applicant No.2 on bail, considering the maximum punishment of seven years prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 05. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer did not arrest non-applicant No.2 and, therefore, he was neither arrested nor released on anticipatory bail. However, the learned trial Court released non-applicant No.2 on bail, which, according to the learned Counsel, is ex facie illegal and bad-in-law. 06. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No.2 canvassed that, as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), the accused is required to be informed of the grounds of arrest as well as of his right to seek bail, and there is no necessity to arrest non-applicant No.2 in each and every case, particularly when no seizure is required to be effected from him. 07. The learned A.P.P. submitted that non-applicant No.2 was duly informed of the grounds of arrest as well as his right to bail. He further submitted that there was nothing further to be seized from non- applicant No.2. Therefore, considering the grounds set out in the application, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and enlarged non-applicant No.2 on bail. 11.appln.124.25 3/4 08. Needless to say, the contents of the FIR suggest that non- applicant No.2 was on visiting terms at the house of the victim. The mother of the victim is a widow and was allegedly in an intimate relationship with non-applicant No.2. The informant/victim has specifically stated that she was molested at the hands of the non- applicant No.2. It is also alleged that non-applicant No.2 stalked her while she was proceeding to her school. 09. Section 47 of the BNSS provides as under: “47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.” 10. Since nothing was required to be seized from non-applicant No.2, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and released non-applicant No.2 on bail in connection with Crime No.436/2024. 11. No doubt, during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant invited the attention of this Court to the complaint dated 14/04/2026 lodged by the mother of the applicant, alleging that the son of non-applicant No.2 had extended threats. However, the mother of the applicant has already lodged the said complaint with the concerned Police Station. There is no allegation that non-applicant No.2 had either pressurized the applicant or attempted to extend any threat to her. Therefore, I do not find any substantial ground to interfere with the bail granted by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15/07/2025. 11.appln.124.25 4/4 12. Hence, the application stands rejected. 13. The professional fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the applicant be quantified and paid as per rules. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 18:13:42