1 30 ba 681.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 681/2026 (Gokul S/o Ramesh Likhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. C.B. Bailmare, Advocate for applicant. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, APP for non-applicant/State. Ms. Preeti S. Gwalani, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 02/07/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.413/2023 registered with Police Station Khapa, Dist. Nagpur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 376(2)(n), 376- D, 376-DA, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 6, 11, 12 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act and Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the Information Technology Act. 3. The informant – mother of the victim alleged that on 23/09/2023, she came to know that obscene photographs of her daughter aged 15 years are being circulated on WhatsApp. Upon inquiry, the victim disclosed that on 02/03/2023, co-accused Dhiraj Hivarkar followed 2 30 ba 681.26 her after her 10th Board examination and demanded her nude photographs, and threatened to beat her father in case of refusal. Out of fear, the victim sent her nude photographs to him on Snapchat. Thereafter, the said Dhiraj Hivarkar sent those photographs to his friends, including the present Applicant (Accused No. 5- Golu Likhar), who allegedly showed the photographs to the victim and asked her to meet them, they also made her obscene photographs viral. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. In the first information report which was lodged on 26/09/2023 there is no allegation of gang rape. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on the same day, wherein the allegations are of only stalking, criminal intimidation and circulation of obscene photographs. The allegations of gang rape against by applicant and his friends have been made after recording of supplementary statement of the victim which could be stated as by way of an afterthought. Serious allegations of gang rape have been made by way of an afterthought which cannot be believed as there are 3 30 ba 681.26 material improvements in the story of the victim, therefore merely on the basis of the supplementary statement recorded by the investigating officer, it is not sufficient to connect the applicant with gang rape in the absence of the medical evidence. He submits that the other co-accused persons Pranay Dekate, Snehal Surkar, Vicky Likhar, Vikas Hedau and Lucky @ Buny Dharmik have been released on bail either by the Trial Court or by the High Court, therefore the applicant is also entitled to grant of bail. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, therefore since the applicant is behind bars for more than 2 years and 7 months and there is no progress in the trial, the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.2/victim vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years. The applicant and other accused persons blackmailed her that they will circulate her obscene photographs and the applicant along with other accused persons committed gang rape on the victim one after another. They also circulated her obscene photographs to various persons who 4 30 ba 681.26 also raped the victim by blackmailing her. Therefore considering the age of the victim and the fact that now the trial has started, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It appears from the record that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years. The mother of the victim has registered the first information report, wherein it is alleged that the informant has received the information from the relatives on 23/09/2023 about the circulation of obscene photographs of her daughter/victim in the village. On inquiry, victim disclosed that on 02/03/23 after her 10th board examination while returning at about 02:30 p.m. co- accused Dhiraj Hivarkar followed her and demanded that she should send him her nude photographs. Upon refusal by the victim, Dhiraj threatened her that he will beat her father. Due to the said threats victim sent her nude photographs to Dhiraj on Snapchat and accordingly Dhiraj started blackmailing her asking her to meet him. Thereafter, victim met with Dhiraj and deleted the photographs, so also from the mobile phone of the other co-accused persons. In the statement recorded of the 5 30 ba 681.26 victim on 26/09/2023 the allegations against the present applicant are only to the extent of having her obscene photographs with him. However, on 26/09/2023 in the supplementary statement, she has given all the details right from the beginning stating that initially Dhiraj received the nude photographs of the victim and thereafter other co-accused persons also received those nude photographs and the accused persons started blackmailing her including the present applicant. On 04/03/2023, she was taken to the applicant’s house, where the applicant and his friends were present and they all committed gang rape on her by blackmailing her. Even thereafter, it appears from the statement that again the present applicant along with other co-accused on the same pretext has committed repeated gang rape. Therefore, the allegations of repeated gang rape are serious in nature. As contended by the learned counsel of the applicant that there are improvements in the story of the prosecution as well as the statement given by the victim is by way of an afterthought cannot be believed at this stage. The incident occurred prior to six months of the registration of the offence and therefore, there cannot be any corroborative 6 30 ba 681.26 medical evidence to that effect. It is further to be noted that so far as ground of parity is concerned, the co-accused persons - Pranay Dekate, Snehal Surkar, Vicky Likhar, Vikas Hedau and Lucky @ Buny Dharmik, against them there are no allegations of gang rape and the case of the applicant is altogether different hence the rule of parity cannot be applicable. No doubt the applicant is behind bars since more than 2 years and 7 months, however, the trial has already started, the ends of justice would be met, if the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Hence considering the serious nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant and the application is rejected. 7. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within nine months as the applicant is behind bars since 2 years and 7 months. The applicant is at liberty to file fresh bail application before the Trial Court, in case trial is not concluded within nine months. 8. Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as per Rules. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane