SA_MANDAWGAD 909 BA 2807-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2807 OF 2026 Jaykumar Kishor Bidichandani … Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sachin Shetye a/w. Ms.Asha Bhambwani, Sudhanshu S. i/by R.B. Mungekar, for the applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent–State. Mr. Sumit Sonare (through VC) a/w. Vaibhav Thore for Respondent No.2. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard. Perused the record. 2. Mr. Chate, learned APP tendered report received from Police Inspector, Mahim Police Station. It is taken on record and marked “X”. 3. The applicant seeking their release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 221 of 2026, registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 75 (1) (i), 75 (1) (iv), 78 (1) (i), 78 (1) (ii), 79 and 356 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and under Sections 67 and 67(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, “IT Act”), on the report dated 10.04.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2. 4. The prosecution case is that between 13.03.2026 and 10.04.2026, the applicant and his mother through their mobile numbers accessed certain porn websites and, uploaded the mobile 2026:BHC-AS:37812 SA_MANDAWGAD 909 BA 2807-26.DOC phone number, email ID and other details of the informant and also of her family members on the said websites. Consequently, the victim, her brother and mother started receiving WhatsApp messages, phone calls and emails inquiring and soliciting their association. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and the applicant was arrested. On completion of the investigation, the police have submitted the charge-sheet. 5. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail holding that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence and that, the applicant has a criminal antecedent of similar offence. 6. Mr. Shetye, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that there is no evidence in the charge-sheet to indicate that the applicant has committed this offence. Therefore, he is entitled for bail. 7. In reply, Mr. Chate, the learned APP and Mr. Sonare, the learned Advocate for the victim have submitted that the investigation material show that, at the relevant time, the applicant uploaded the personal information of the victim and her relatives on the porn websites and hence, different individual contacted them for indecent work. As such, there is a prima facie case against the applicant. The applicant has a criminal antecedent of similar nature. Earlier also, three such complaints were filed against the applicant by the victim. Therefore, bail be refused. 8. I have considered these submissions. In order to blame the applicant for this offence, the Respondent police must show that, at the relevant time, the applicant had accessed the porn websites using his or his mother’s personal mobile or computer and, he SA_MANDAWGAD 909 BA 2807-26.DOC then uploaded the mobile phone numbers, email ids. etc. of the victim and her family members. However, in this regard, no material on record is pointed out by the learned APP and Mr. Sonare, the learned Advocate. In my opinion, unless this is properly clarified and shown, it is difficult to prima facie hold that the applicant had accessed the porn websites and there, he created the accounts of the victim, her brother and other by registering their email ids. etc, with an intention to cause them annoyance and harassment. No doubt, certain social media account/s showed the mobile numbers of the applicant, his mother and the applicant’s email id. attached to the information on the web-page. However, it is not explained as to whether the applicant himself or his mother or they both had added their said information on the web-site concern. The electronic evidence collected is yet to be analysed by an expert. In this background, I find it difficult to conclude that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence against the applicant. In the earlier such case, the applicant is on bail. 9. In the wake of the above, the applicant may be released on bail. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, stringent bail conditions needed to be imposed including to stay outside Mumbai. Hence, Order :- (i) Applicant Jaykumar Kishor Bidichandani be released on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) On instruction, Mr. Shetye, stated that the applicant will reside in Lonavala, till conclusion of the trial. Therefore, SA_MANDAWGAD 909 BA 2807-26.DOC the applicant shall mark his attendance at Lonavala Police Station, Bangarwadi, on 1st and 16th day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. However, this condition will not bar the applicant from entering in Mumbai to attend the proceedings arising out of the earlier and the present crimes. (iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (iv) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (v) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. (vi) It is clarified that the observations/opinion made in the present Order are limited to deciding the present Bail application. The trial Court to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the said observations/opinion. 10. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 19:08:39