IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2026 JANARDHAN GOVERDHAN JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Ms. Sakshi Dushing h/f Mr. Sanjay B. Dushing, Advocate for Appellant Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. S. E. Shekade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 298/2026, registered with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 69, 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(20(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The First Information Report indicates that the victim has alleged against the present appellant that, on the fateful day, with the assistance of his employee, he committed forcible sexual assault upon her. She claims that, at the instance of Rohidas, she went to the spot where she was subjected to such abuse. 930 APEAL 544.2026.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:40467 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that, now that the charge- sheet has been filed upon conclusion of the investigation, custodial interrogation of the appellant is no longer necessary. She has drawn the attention of the Court to the charge-sheet, more particularly to the history given by the victim to the Medical Officer, which indicates that the appellant and the victim were known to each other. It is her submission that the said history given to the Medical Officer is contrary to the allegations contained in the First Information Report. According to her, this inconsistency creates doubt regarding the correctness of the allegations made against the appellant. In view of these circumstances, she submits that, after filing of the charge- sheet, the appellant cannot be kept in custody by way of pre-trial punishment. She further submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents. 4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant, contending that the offence is serious in nature and that there are specific allegations against the appellant, as reflected in the First Information Report. 5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there are inconsistencies with regard to the occurrence of the incident, as well as with regard to the acquaintance of the victim with the appellant. As rightly submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant, these inconsistencies create doubt regarding the 930 APEAL 544.2026.odt 2 of 3 truthfulness of the allegations contained in the First Information Report. Having regard to these facts, and particularly considering that the charge- sheet has already been filed, the appellant cannot be kept in custody by way of pre-trial punishment. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Appellant in connection with Crime No. 298/2026, registered with Ahilyanagar Taluka Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 69, 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(20(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be released on bail on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 930 APEAL 544.2026.odt 3 of 3