Order 290926aba823.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO. 823 OF 2026. Nikhil Vijay Dongre. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.514/2026 registered with Risod Police Station, District Washim for the offence punishable under Section 137[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). During investigation, offences under Sections 143[3], [4], 144[1], 65[1], 96 and 3[5] of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came to be added. Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13036 Order 290926aba823.26 2 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Sou. Panchfula Kalasare (mother of the victim) alleging that on 15.05.2026 in the afternoon when she returned from the agricultural work, her daughter- victim, was not in the house and even on search, she could not be found, therefore, the first information report was lodged against unknown person. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there are no allegations of rape against the applicant, however, it is alleged that the applicant accompanied the victim along with other accused persons, who took her to the State of Madhya Pradesh, and performed her marriage with other co- accused. It is further submitted that the applicant also witnessed the marriage of the victim, this allegation is an after thought. He contended that after marriage, victim on her own resided with the co-accused at Tajpura, Harda (M.P.), and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is involved in the offence of trafficking. He therefore, prayed for grant of bail. To support his contention, he has relied on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in case of Nazir Hussain and others .vrs. State of Assam – 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2971, wherein in identical set of facts, the applicants therein were released on Rgd. Order 290926aba823.26 3 anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the victim was called by co-accused from Risod to Washim. When the victim reached the house of the co-accused Santoshi Ingle, she was given water, due to which she felt drowsy. In the evening at 8 p.m., she was taken from Washim to Harda, and during this journey applicant was present throughout i.e. from Washim to Harda, and not only that she was sold at Harda (MP). Thereafter, her marriage was performed with one Shyam Barad. The learned A.P.P. submits that the victim had disclosed the entire incident in detail and had named the applicant. According to learned A.P.P., the applicant is instrumental in the entire episode and therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, as the applicant has not only actively participated in the trafficking of a girl aged 13 years, but, thereafter he had sold her to Shyam with whom her marriage was performed. It is submitted that after marriage, the victim was also subjected to sexual assault by Shyam. In such circumstances, the applicant does not deserve to be protected. Rgd. Order 290926aba823.26 4 6. Upon consideration of the aforesaid submissions of the parties and after going through the material on record, it appears that on 21.05.2026 initially an offence under Section 137[2] of the BNS was registered against unknown person, as per the information given by mother of the victim. It further appears that the victim returned from Tajpura and her statement was recorded on 02.06.2026, wherein she had disclosed the entire incident. Upon perusal of the same, it is revealed that on 06.05.2026, co-accused Santoshi Ingle called the victim and accordingly the victim went to the house of Santoshi Ingle at Washim, there Santoshi Ingle offered her water for drinking and after drinking, the victim felt drowsy. At 8 p.m. on the same day, the victim was taken from Washim to Tajpura, Harda (MP) where in presence of the accused persons one Shyam performed marriage with her. In return of which the applicant and other accused received money. It appears that right from the beginning i.e. from the house of Santoshi Ingle till the performance of the marriage of victim with Shyam, the applicant was present with her, and therefore, in such circumstances it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the said crime. Infact since Rgd. Order 290926aba823.26 5 inception, the applicant along with other co-accused had an intention of selling the minor, aged 13 years, and accordingly she was sold after performing the marriage with Shyam in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and further said Shyam committed forceful sexual intercourse with her repeatedly till 31.05.2026. In such circumstances, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be protected. 7. So far as the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant i.e. case of Nazir Hussain (supra), the facts of said case are distinct and different from the present one, and therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. In view of above, Criminal Application is rejected. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 01/10/2026 12:24:53