38. BA-3569-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3569 OF 2026 Subhash Bhimrao Pawar .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Shreyas Purushottam Barsawade a/w Mr. Ashish Limbaji Rathod, Advocates for Applicant  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for State  Mr. Chinmay Godse, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2  Mr. Avinash Gaikwad, PSI, Daund Police Station, Pune. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Barsawade, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for State and Mr. Godse, learned Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2. 2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No. 122/2019 registered with Daund Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Sections 4, 5(l),(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 1 of 6 38. BA-3569-26.odt 3. Applicant is 31 years old whereas the prosecutrix at the time when she left along with the Applicant was 14 years 9 months old and she turned 15 when she was with the Applicant. 4. The case of the prosecution is that according to the first informant - prosecutrix's own statement, which is recorded, she states that her father committed cruelty on her due to which she found solace in the Applicant and his wife who were their immediate neighbors and known to her and her family. She had befriended the Applicant and his wife when they were neighbors for quite some time when they had come over for sugar cane cutting work in the previous year. When the prosecutrix found that she could not take the abuses and cruelty and excesses committed by her own father on her, she left along with the Applicant and his wife and started living with them in their house in another village. Along with the Applicant and his wife, the prosecutrix also started working in a brick kiln for some time. This went on for almost six months after which the present complaint was lodged. 5. Present FIR was lodged on 28.02.2019. The alleged occurrence of the incidents as stated in the FIR is of one singular date, that is on 20.02.2019 where in a singular line, the first informant - prosecutrix has stated that the Applicant had all through out the tenure while she residing with him, repeatedly outraged her modesty. The statement of 2 of 6 38. BA-3569-26.odt the prosecutrix prima facie does not match with the contents of the FIR which has been noted by the prosecution. Since alleged occurrence of an incident of only 20.02.2019 has been alleged, the statement of the prosecutrix is in fact contradictory. The statement of the prosecutrix does not stop here. She further alleges that as and when the repeated incidents occurred, she had also brought it to the notice of the wife of the Applicant but she neglected and ignored the same. The Applicant has been arrested after a hiatus of 11 months thereafter. The prosecutrix herself has presented 11 months thereafter for the purpose of recording her statement. 6. Though the learned APP and learned Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2\, would vehemently argue that the medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted about the seizure of clothes which she had worn 11 months prior in point of time prima facie shows the complicity of the Applicant and the said medical report clearly indicts the alleged incidents having taken place, however, in view of the abnormal length of time of conduct of the said medical examination, I am not inclined to accept the same at the threshold. 7. Needless to state that complicity of the Applicant in the crime on the basis of any material evidence that the prosecution has gathered shall be proved at trial. The Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. He is in incarceration for the past more than 6 years 7 3 of 6 38. BA-3569-26.odt months pending trial. Trial has not commenced and all this itself is a good ground for this Court to consider for grant of bail. 8. In view of the above discussion, Applicant is released on bail on the following terms and conditions:- 9. In view of the above the following order is passed:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail from prison in connection with C.R. No. 122/2019; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Daund Police Station, once every month on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra 4 of 6 38. BA-3569-26.odt without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. 10. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions made and the material placed before this Court. 11. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Godse, learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the cause of Respondent No. 2. His fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998. 1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024 5 of 6 38. BA-3569-26.odt 12. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.29 15:12:12 +0530