MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3132 OF 2026 Chintan Vinesh Toprani …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Mr. Saurabh D. Butala, for the Applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an FIR bearing Cr.No.247 of 2026, registered with CSMT Railway Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75, 78 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the report dated 4th April, 2026 filed by the informant (“the victim”). 3. Prosecution case is that, on 1st April, 2026 at about 12.45 p.m. at CSMT Railway Station, when the victim aged 24 years was seated in a train, an unknown person came there and, outrage her modesty and addressed an obscene comment towards her. Therefore, aforesaid crime came to be registered. During investigation, police arrested the applicant. The investigation revealed that the applicant was the same person who committed this offence. Therefore, the applicant was arrested and stood charge-sheeted. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail. 4. Mr. Sathe, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the offence was registered against an unknown person. The WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.29 10:01:02 +0530 MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC applicant is arrested only on suspicion. There is delay in the TIP. Therefore, the identity of the applicant is doubtful. The alleged offence is punishable with maximum imprisonment of five year. The applicant is behind bars for four months. His further detention will not serve any purpose. The trial will take a considerable time. Even if there are two criminal antecedents, therein, the applicant is on bail The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the evidence. He, therefore, urged to grant the bail. 5. Mr. Chate, learned APP, on the other hand, has strongly opposed the application contending that there is sufficient material against the applicant of having committed this offence and there are two criminal antecedents of similar nature. 6. I have considered these submissions. The FIR clearly narrates that the victim was followed by the offender and he had outraged her modesty. Further, he had passed an indecent comment against her. Based on the CCTV footage the applicant was arrested. The victim identified the applicant during the TIP. Therefore, there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having committed this offence. Record indicates that, applicant has two antecedents: one u/Ss. 354D IPC and 18 POCSO Act, the another u/Ss.354 IPC and 8 & 18 POCSO Act. No doubt, said cases have been registered in 2019. Nevertheless, it appears that, the applicant has tendency of committing such offences and even after 7 years, he has not improved his conduct. This indicates that he has no fear of law. Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence. 7. As a result, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The application is liable to be rejected and is rejected, accordingly. Page 2 of 3 MANOJ 910-BA-3132-2026.DOC 8. 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 the merits of the case. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)