3.apeal.241.26 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2026 Nitesh s/o Prakash Mottewar vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Bittergaon, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal and another =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. V.R. Thote, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G.S. Umale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sakshi Pathak, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2 026. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State and the learned Counsel appointed for respondent No.2/victim. 02. By the present appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the ‘Atrocities Act’ for short), the appellant-accused takes exception to the order dated 01/04/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.140/2026, by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Pusad, District Yavatmal, whereby his prayer for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.265/2025, registered with Police Station Bittergaon, District Yavatmal, on 27/11/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 78, 308(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short), Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act and Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, came to be rejected. 03. It is a matter of record that, on 27/11/2025, respondent No.2/victim lodged a report with Police Station Bittergaon alleging that the appellant-accused, who resides in the same lane, had visited her 2026:BHC-NAG:11903 3.apeal.241.26 2/4 house at about 12:30 p.m. and disclosed that he liked her. When she informed him that she was a married woman having a daughter, the appellant continued to stalk her. On one occasion, the appellant entered her bedroom and committed rape upon her by threatening to cause harm to her daughter and recorded obscene videos of her on his mobile phone. Subsequently, the appellant allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her under threat of forwarding the obscene videos on social media, including Instagram, as well as to her husband, who was serving in the Military, and under such treats, he extracted money from her. It is further alleged that, lastly, on 22/11/2025, the appellant demanded money and threatened to upload/forward the obscene videos of the victim to her husband. Not only this, the appellant allegedly uploaded the said obscene videos on Instagram. On the basis of the said report, the crime came to be registered. 04. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the appellant is a law-abiding citizen and has been falsely implicated in the crime. According to the learned Counsel, as per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a major married woman and was fully aware of the alleged relationship. The Investigating Officer has already seized the mobile phone of the appellant along with the electronic evidence. However, the said evidence does not support the allegation that the obscene videos were uploaded by the appellant. It is further canvassed that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Since, nothing remains to be seized from the appellant, further custodial detention of the appellant is not required. Hence, he prayed for enlarging the appellant on bail. 05. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor canvassed that, during the course of investigation, the victim was referred for medical examination. The opinion of the Medical Officer corroborates the allegation regarding sexual intercourse with the victim. Further, the 3.apeal.241.26 3/4 statement of the victim’s husband has been recorded, wherein he has specifically stated that the obscene videography of his wife was uploaded on Instagram. Respondent No.2-victim is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and her husband is serving in the Indian Military. The photographs produced on record corroborate the allegations made by respondent No.2. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the mobile phone from the accused, which was thereafter examined by an expert, who opined regarding the existence of obscene videography and collected the said data on a pen drive. 06. It is pertinent to note that the offence punishable under Section 64 of the BNS provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life, but not less than ten years. Section 78 of the BNS provides for punishment for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine. Section 308 of the BNS provides for punishment which may extend to seven years, with or without fine. Section 351 of the BNS provides for punishment which may extend to two years, with or without fine. The offences punishable under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act prescribe punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, with fine. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act provides for punishment which may extend to three years, with fine, and Section 67-A provides for punishment which may extend to five years and with fine on first conviction. 07. In the case in hand, it prima facie appears that the appellant and the victim are residing in the same lane of their village. Though the charge-sheet has been filed, till date, the charge has not been framed. Therefore, if the appellant is released on bail at this juncture, the possibility of the appellant extending threats to the victim cannot be ruled out. Not only this, the appellant came to be arrested on 28/11/2025 and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is any delay in conducting the trial. 3.apeal.241.26 4/4 08. On 01/04/2026, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and declined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The said order does not appear to be illegal or contrary to law and no substantial ground has been made out for enlarging the appellant on bail. However, the learned Trial Court can be directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not concluded within the said period, the appellant shall have the liberty to renew his prayer for bail. 09. The learned Trial Court shall conduct the trial expeditiously and curtail unnecessary adjournments. The prosecution shall ensure production of the appellant before the Court on each and every date of hearing, either physically or through virtual mode. The Investigating Officer shall ensure that the FSL report in respect of the examination of the electronic gadgets, including the mobile phone, if any, is collected and placed on record. 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands dismissed. 11. The professional fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent respondent No.2 be quantified and paid in accordance with the applicable rules. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 12:24:41