P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4880 OF 2025 Jagdamba Prasad Badai Yadav ….applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. .…Respondents Mr. Navkar Jain a/w. Mr. Vivek Thakare for the applicant. Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Ms. Ashwini Achari, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Tukaram Mengal, PSI, Aarey Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in POCSO Special Case No.572/2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.430/2022 registered with Aarey Sub Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(3), 354, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), 1860 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 on the Report dated 05.10.2022 lodged by the mother of the victim. 3. The prosecution case is that in the night intervening 28th and 29th September 2022, at about 3:00 a.m., the applicant entered in the makeshift hut of the victim girl aged 6 years and committed penetrative sexual assault by inserting finger in her genital. It is alleged that on 05.10.2022 at about 1:30 p.m., when the applicant was present in front of the house of the informant, the victim identified him. Therefore, the police was informed and P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC the applicant was apprehended. There the said crime came to be registered. The applicant’s 1st and 2nd Bail Application before the trial Court came to be rejected on 02.08.2023 and 25.01.2024. Thereafter, he filed BA/4181/2024 before this Court. She said Application was allowed to be withdrawn on 15.04.2025 as this Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thereafter, the applicant filed 3rd bail application before the trial Court which came to be rejected on 07.11.2025. 4. Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that he is pressing this bail application only on the ground of prolonged incarceration. To substantiate the same, Mr. Jain submitted that, the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2022 and charge has been framed on 21.07.2025, the charge was not framed. Till the date, no witness is examined. He, therefore, urged to grant bail. 5. Opposing these submissions, Ms. Hiwrale, the learned APP and Ms. Achari, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 have submitted that the last bail Order dated 07.11.2025 clearly indicates that the applicant is responsible for the delay in the trial. Therefore and highlighting the act of the applicant, they submitted to reject this Application. 6. I have considered these submissions. It is a matter of record that, the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2022. The Applicant’s BA/4181/2024 before this Court was allowed to be withdrawn on 15.04.2025 as this Court was not incline to release the applicant on bail. However, till 21.07.2025 charge was not framed. It appears that, since there was delay in framing the charge and the case was not advancing, therefore, the applicant felt that his detention was turning punitive. It was in these circumstances, the P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC applicant got constrained to file the 3rd bail application on 21.07.2025. However, on the same day, the trial Court framed the charge. Thereafter, the trial Court rejected the 3rd bail application blaming the applicant that he was responsible for the delay in the trial. However, meanwhile, the trial Court did not summon any witness nor decided the bail application. There is nothing on record indicating that the applicant was resisting the hearing and disposal of his bail application or opposing to examine the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the applicant was not blameable for the delay in the trial. 7. In the wake of above and, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Hence, the following Order :- (i) The applicant – Jagdamba Prasad Badai Yadav shall be released on bail in POCSO Special Case No.572/2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.430/2022 registered with Aarey Sub Police Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Aarey Sub Police Station, Mumbai on 1st day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. (iv) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai till conclusion of the trial. Page 3 of 4 P.H. JAYANI 911 BA4880.2025.DOC (v) Till conclusion of the trial, the applicant shall not reside/enter into the area where the informant with her family is residing. (vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (vii) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.11 18:43:48 +0530