40-BA-3195-26.doc rsk IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3195 OF 2026 Deepak Gobri Yadav .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Parmeshwar Shendge a/w. Ms. Sapna M. for Applicant.  Ms. Harshada Shrikhande, (Through Legal Aid) for Respondent No.2.  Mr. Naid Shaikh, PSI, Shivgaon Parandwadi Police Station, Pune. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Parmeshwar Shendge, learned counsel for Applicant, Ms. Harshada Shrikhande, learned counsel (Through Legal Aid) for Respondent No.2. 2. The applicant is arraigned as Accused No.3 in POCSO related matter. There are three accused persons. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant persuaded me to consider the order dated 19 January 2026 passed by this Court (Coram: Shivkumar Dighe, J.) in Criminal Bail Application No.661 of 2025. He would submit that by virtue of the said order, this Court had granted bail to the applicant with conditions. He would submit that in the said order, one of the consideration which probably was appreciated by Court was that there was no progress in the trial, as is stated in the said order. He would in 1 of 6 40-BA-3195-26.doc his usual fairness, apprise the Court that trial has since commenced, five witnesses have already been examined and another four witnesses are yet to be examined. 3. He would next submit that on the date of hearing before the Trial Court i.e. on 3 June 2026 applicant could not remain present and on that day, a NBW was issued and also notice was issued to deposit the amount of the forfeited bond as well as surety, on the ground that applicant breached one of the bail conditions which required him to remain present before the Trial Court. The said order dated 3 June 2026 of the Trial Court is appended at page 174. I have perused the same. He has drawn my attention to order dated 8 July 2026 which is an order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application of the applicant to grant regular bail to the applicant subsequent to the passing of the order dated 3 June 2026. I have perused the said order. Hence, the applicant has moved this Court. 4. Learned appointed advocate through the legal aid, Ms.Shrikhande on behalf of the prosecutrix, however has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and persuaded me to consider the contents of the aforesaid orders dated 3 June 2026 and 8 July 2026. She would argue that non compliance with bail condition itself is prima facie evident from the conduct of the applicant and therefore the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. She would submit that considering the trial 2 of 6 40-BA-3195-26.doc having commenced and only four more witnesses are remaining to be examined, it would be in the fairness of things if the present bail application is rejected and the trial is expedited. The submissions made by Ms. Shrikhande are also echoed by the learned Prosecutor on behalf of the State in view of the present matter being a POCSO case. 5. I have heard the submissions on behalf of the learned Advocate for applicant, the learned appointed Advocate Ms. Shrikhande and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case. Insofar as breach of bail condition is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution as well as the learned Advocate for the prosecutix that it is in regard to non-attendance of the applicant on the date of trial before Trial Court. 6. The order shows that the applicant was not present when his name was repeatedly called out and therefore the Court was constrained to pass the order dated 3 June 2026. The applicant therefore filed application seeking enlargement on bail and also for non-forfeiture which came to be dismissed by order dated 8 July 2026. The explanation offered by the applicant as can be seen in paragraph 5(iv) of the grounds enumerated on page 8 of the application is that on 3 June 2026, the applicant got delayed in reaching the Court due to his train from Uttar Pradesh arriving late in Mumbai. Save and except the aforesaid dereliction there is no other dereliction attributed to the applicant. 3 of 6 40-BA-3195-26.doc 7. Though the learned appointed Advocate Ms. Shrikhande may be right in her contention that since this is a POCSO related matter and in view of the decision in X.. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 and argues that once the trial commences it would not be proper to enlarge the applicant/accused persons on bail, I am of the prima facie opinion that the said facts and analogy would not apply to the applicant’s case before me in the present application. In this case, the Applicant was already enlarged on bail. 8. This Court while passing the order dated 19 January 2026 has given reasons which I do not wish to reiterate, primarily because after reading the order dated 19 January 2026, I am of the opinion that present application has to be determined solely on the basis of the applicant’s difficulty expressed by him in not remaining present on the date of hearing i.e. 3 June 2026. The applicant’s Advocate is before me. He would submit that the applicant will file an undertaking that on all future hearing dates henceforth, he will remain present before the Trial Court. His such statement is noted and accepted. Needless to state that if this undertaking is breached then in that case the applicant will have to be arrested and put in jail. That undertaking is directed to be filed within a period of two weeks by the applicant from the date of applicant’s release on bail before the Trial Court. 9. Needless to state, in view of the aforesaid prima facie 4 of 6 40-BA-3195-26.doc observations and findings, the applicant is enlarged on bail in C.R. No.154 of 2024 on executing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- and/or furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount with the condition that he will attend the concerned Trial Court where the trial has commenced on all the future dates of hearing. 10. The Applicant is directed and warned by the Court that if he has to reach the Trial Court on the date of hearing from his home town in Uttar Pradesh, he should reach Mumbai one day before the date of hearing in Trial Court to ensure that he does not face breach the above conditions. 11. The applicant is further directed not to tamper with any evidence or contact the complainant or any person concerned with the case. 12. Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 13. It is made clear that the aforesaid observations are made only for the purpose of grant of bail to the applicant and the Trial Court to proceed with the case on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of observations aforesaid. 14. Ms. Shrikhande, learned appointed advocate through legal aid for respondent No.2 and first informant has ably assisted the Court and the Court appreciates her contribution. Fees of the appointed advocate are directed to be paid to her within a period of one week from the 5 of 6 40-BA-3195-26.doc date of presentation of a server copy of this order downloaded from the High Court website along with her professional charges to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Her 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 vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998. 15. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of. rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 1 Judgment dated 25.9.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.134 of 2024. 6 of 6