IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1330 OF 2026 Nitin Ramkishan Maske VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19 August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 0239 of 2026, registered on 18.05.2026, at the Kotwali Police Sta- tion, District Parbhani for offences punishable under sections 78, 64 (2) (i), 79, 356-2, 356-3, 137-2 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and under sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’ Act). 2. The First Information Report lodged by the victim/respondent no. 3 who is minor, 16 years old alleges that she was residing at her maternal aunt's house in Parbhani for her education. While undergoing medical treatment for jaundice in January 2024, the victim came into contact with Applicant, who was a neighbor of her aunt. Thereafter, they remained in contact through phone calls, messages, and on social media. ABA-1330-2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:38161 On 09.02.2026, the Applicant allegedly took the victim on his motorcycle to an agricultural field near Loha, District Nanded, where he committed sexual assault upon her. Subsequently, on 16.05.2026, the Applicant up- loaded her photograph with a caption “Duniya Meri Mazi Bayko” on social media i.e. Instagram to defame her publicly which led to the registration of the FIR on 18.05.2026. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Appli- cant has been falsely implicated in the crime without any admissible evi- dence. It was highlighted that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report as the alleged incident took place on 9.2.2026, photo uploaded on Instagram story is on 16.5.2026 and the FIR was lodged on 18.5.2026. He submitted that since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, custodial inter- rogation of the Applicant is no longer required. He further submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, and personal liberty of the present applicant may be protected. He further contends that arrest would cause irreparable loss to reputation and livelihood of the appli- cant. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharth V/s State of UP reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court cases 676, Ashok Kumar V/s State of Union Terriotory Chandigarh in Special Leave Petition No. ABA-1330-2026.odt 2 of 4 9949/2023 and Siddharth Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Ma- harashtra reported in 2011 (1) SPC (Cri) 514. 4. The Learned APP vehemently resisted the grant of pre-arrest bail, pointing out that the victim was barely 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, making her consent legally immaterial under the POCSO Act. It was contended that specific allegations have been levelled against the present Applicant regarding the sexual assault of the minor in an agricultural field. It was further highlighted that the Applicant de- famed the victim online by sharing her photo on Social Media platform i.e. Instagram, therefore, his physical custody is necessary for recovering his mobile phone, securing digital evidence, preventing misuse of data, and collecting samples for DNA analysis. 5. Perusal of the documents placed on record along with the charge-sheet, the allegations against the Applicant are of a grave and serious in nature involving sexual assault on a victim. In the facts of the case it would be relevant that the victim is a minor, and the position on the law of consent of the minor is settled now that the consent even though consensual is legally immaterial. By sharing the victim’s photo- graph on a social media platform constitutes online defamation and cyber bullying which intensifies the seriousness of the crime. Once prima facie involvement of applicant in crime and his conduct suggest that grant of ABA-1330-2026.odt 3 of 4 bail to him would be prejudice to the interest of minor victim girl, he would not be entitled for relief. 6. Prima facie perusal of the facts of the case indicate that cus- todial interrogation is necessary for securing electronic devices and DNA analysis. In case of X v.s State of Maharashtra and Another, (2023) 4 SCC 345 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the victim is a minor, consent is legally immaterial under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 7. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi ABA-1330-2026.odt 4 of 4