IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1231 OF 2026 Ganesh Pandharinath Kokate ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for applicant Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mrs. Sayali Tekale-Dadpe, Advocate for respondent no.2 (appointed) .... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The applicant seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 103 of 2026 registered with Rajur Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for offences punishable under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was arrested on 11 April 2026. Investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed in Special Case No. 63 of 2026 before the Special Court at Sangamner. 2. The prosecution states that the applicant was working as a teacher in a Government English Medium residential Ashram School and was the class teacher of Standard VII. The informant was the in-charge Headmaster. On 1 April 2026, the superintendent of the girls' hostel informed the headmaster that a girl student had complained of inappropriate touching by the applicant. 2026:BHC-AUG:47817 According to the complaint, when the child approached the applicant for checking her notebook, he touched her waist. She also complained that, on another occasion, he touched her from behind while she was returning to her bench. Upon enquiries with other students, similar complaints came to light. The matter was referred to the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Project, and an enquiry was conducted through the women's complaint redressal committee. Thereafter, the Headmaster lodged the first information report on 10 April 2026. 3. The prosecution further states that the applicant used occasions such as checking notebooks, giving or receiving books, permitting telephone calls and asking students to perform classroom tasks to approach the children and touch them inappropriately. Although the first information report refers to nine children, the investigation papers and the committee report refer to ten. The material includes allegations of touching the waist, chest and buttocks, holding or rubbing a child's hand, and bringing his body close to a child. One child has also alleged that a photograph taken for a scholarship examination was edited using artificial intelligence to depict her in a partly unclothed condition and was shown to her. The children's statements were recorded during investigation, including statements before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS. The applicant's mobile phone was seized during investigation. 4. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated owing to a dispute with the headmaster concerning deductions of house rent from his salary. Reliance is placed upon the applicant's written representation made in February 2026. It is submitted that the interval of nine days between the incident referred to in the first information report and registration of the crime provided an opportunity to construct a case against the applicant. Ld. Advocate further submits that the accounts given during the departmental enquiry, to the police and before the Magistrate contain inconsistencies; that the children's written statements were not in their own handwriting; and that the possibility of tutoring requires consideration. It is also contended that the applicant's insistence upon classroom discipline, including restrictions upon the use of mobile phones, had caused displeasure among some students. 5. Ld. Advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant had served as a teacher for about six years without any earlier complaint of this nature and that no criminal antecedents are disclosed in the application. The application also disputes a non-cognizable complaint allegedly lodged by a child's father. It is submitted that the offences presently invoked carry imprisonment extending up to seven years, investigation is complete, and further custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The applicant has a fixed residence and family responsibilities and undertakes to attend the trial and comply with conditions intended to prevent contact with the children and interference with the evidence. The earlier order also records reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in N. R. Sugandaraju v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1532. 6. Ld. APP opposes the application and submits that the allegations concern several minor students who were under the applicant's authority. The children's accounts and the enquiry material disclose a prima facie case. It is submitted that the applicant misused the trust attached to his position and that filing of the charge-sheet does not reduce the gravity of the alleged acts. The prosecution apprehends that, if released, he may influence or pressurise the children and other witnesses, repeat similar conduct or fail to attend the trial. The informant's written objection likewise emphasises the vulnerability of the children and the possibility of pressure being exerted upon them and the school staff. 7. The allegations and the statements collected during investigation require serious consideration. Several children have described specific acts attributed to the applicant. Their accounts cannot be discarded at the stage of bail merely because the applicant asserts a dispute with the headmaster. The applicant's position as their class teacher is a material circumstance, both in assessing the accusation and in considering whether release may affect the witnesses. The allegation concerning an edited photograph must also be considered along with the allegations of physical contact. The application therefore cannot be decided on the footing that the prosecution material is confined to an isolated or wholly unspecified complaint. 8. As regards the submission concerning false implication, the February 2026 representation shows that the applicant had raised a grievance about deductions towards accommodation and sought access to salary bills. That document, by itself, does not establish that the subsequent complaints of several children were fabricated. Similarly, a statement recorded in handwriting other than that of the child does not, without more, establish tutoring. These contentions may be tested through evidence at the trial. No finding accepting the defence of fabrication is warranted at this stage. 9. Ld. Advocate has relied upon the delay in registration of the first information report. The record, however, contains material concerning complaints to school authorities, consideration by the school committee and an enquiry preceding registration of the crime. The interval cannot therefore be treated, at this stage, as an unexplained period establishing an afterthought. Whether every step was taken promptly and whether any part of the account was subsequently improved are matters for trial. Bail is not being granted on a finding that the complaints are unreliable because of delay. 10. The submission regarding differences in the statements also requires a limited approach. The children describe different incidents and different forms of conduct; their accounts cannot be expected to be identical. Whether a particular difference amounts to a material contradiction or an improvement must be determined after the witnesses are examined. At the same time, the nature of the acts actually described must be considered rather than treating every allegation as interchangeable. The Court has considered the accounts of touching the waist, chest and buttocks, the alleged repeated contact described by one child, the accounts concerning hand contact and physical proximity, and the separate allegation concerning the edited photograph. A detailed determination of their truth or evidentiary effect would be premature. 11. The Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that a court considering bail in a POCSO case must examine the gravity of the allegations, the investigation material, the child's vulnerability and the likelihood of intimidation. General bail principles cannot substitute for examination of those circumstances. That decision concerned allegations of repeated penetrative assault, armed intimidation, recording for blackmail and subsequent threats. Its governing principles have been applied here; the present application must nevertheless be decided upon its own allegations and circumstances. 12. The presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act must also be kept in view. Nothing in this order amounts to a finding that those presumptions stand rebutted or that sexual intent is absent. Equally, the Act does not impose an absolute prohibition against regular bail. The material supporting the accusation must be considered together with the need for further detention and the possibility of protecting the children and securing a fair trial through effective conditions. 13. The investigation is complete and the prosecution has filed its charge-sheet. The children's statements, the committee material and the relevant school documents form part of the record. The mobile phone referred to in the investigation papers has also been seized. Thus, the applicant's continued custody is not necessary for securing that device or recording the statements already collected. This circumstance does not erase the accusation or the risk of influencing witnesses, but it is relevant to the present need for detention. The contention that there is no recovery material cannot be accepted without qualification in view of the seizure of the phone; nevertheless, that seizure has already been effected. 14. The offences presently charged concern non-penetrative sexual assault and sexual harassment. Section 10 of the POCSO Act provides imprisonment of not less than five years, extending to seven years, and fine. The applicant has remained in custody since 11 April 2026, for more than five months. That period is not being treated as extraordinary incarceration or as sufficient, by itself, to justify release. Nor does the prescribed punishment confer an automatic entitlement to bail. However, the nature of the charged offences, their punishment, the completed investigation, the custody undergone and the applicant's disclosed residential ties are relevant when considered together. No previous conviction or separate prosecution supported by particulars has been identified in the material relied upon for opposing this application. The disputed reference to a non-cognizable complaint cannot be treated as an established instance of criminal conduct without examining its particulars. 15. The principal concern is the applicant's access to the children and his capacity to exert influence as their teacher. A routine condition against tampering would be insufficient in these circumstances. Release must therefore be accompanied by conditions preventing him from entering the school or hostel, contacting the children or their families, or approaching the witnesses about the case. Requiring him to reside outside Akole Taluka for a defined period, subject to review by the Special Court, will provide additional separation while the children's evidence is recorded. His address must be verified and his attendance monitored. These safeguards directly address the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution and the informant. 16. The earlier rejection of bail and the reasons recorded by the Special Court have been considered. The first order was passed while investigation was pending; the second order considered the charge-sheet and stressed the applicant's authority over vulnerable witnesses. That concern remains material. However, upon considering the custody now undergone, the nature of the offences charged, the evidence already secured and the substantial restrictions proposed upon the applicant's movements and contact, continued detention is not considered necessary. 17. On an overall consideration of these circumstances, the applicant can be released on bail subject to the following conditions. The allegations remain to be adjudicated at trial, and the conditions are intended to preserve the children's safety and their ability to give evidence without pressure. ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The applicant, Ganesh Pandharinath Kokate, shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 103 of 2026 registered with Rajur Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court. (iii) The applicant shall furnish to the Special Court and the Investigating Officer the complete address at which he will reside outside Akole Taluka, together with his mobile number. He shall reside outside Akole Taluka and shall not enter that Taluka for six months from his release or until the evidence of the child witnesses are recorded, whichever is earlier, except with prior permission of the Special Court. If their evidence is not recorded within six months, the Special Court shall review the need for continuation or modification of this restriction after hearing the parties. Any change of residence shall require prior intimation to the Special Court and the Investigating Officer. (iv) The applicant shall not enter the school or its hostel premises or contact any of the children concerned or their family members, directly, through another person, by telephone, through social media or by any other means. (v) He shall not threaten, induce, pressurise or otherwise influence the informant or any prosecution witness, or approach them to discuss the case. (vi) Any necessary participation in departmental proceedings shall take place through the competent authority, without direct contact with the children or other prosecution witnesses. The restriction concerning the school and contact shall continue during the trial unless modified by a reasoned order of the Special Court. (vii) The applicant shall attend the police station having jurisdiction over his disclosed residence on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for six months. The Investigating Officer shall communicate this order to that police station. (viii) The applicant shall attend the Special Court on every date unless exempted, shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, and shall not leave India without prior permission of the Special Court. (ix) He shall not delete, alter, circulate or cause circulation of any photograph or electronic material concerning the children or interfere with any electronic evidence relating to the case. (x) The Special Court shall give priority to recording the evidence of the child witnesses in accordance with the safeguards and timelines contemplated by the POCSO Act. Any complaint of contact, intimidation or breach of the above conditions shall be promptly brought before the Special Court. The prosecution or an affected person may seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. (xi) The observations in this order are confined to consideration of bail. The Special Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence, without being influenced by these observations. (xii) Fees of Mrs. Sayali Tekale-Dadpe, learned Advocate who was appointed to represent Respondent No.2 in this matter, is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) SSD