32.BA.3412.2026.doc Ajay 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.3412 OF 2026 Vaibhav Dnyanoba Kusal .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Another .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w. Mr. Harsh Rathod and Mr. Prithviraj Mundwadkar, Mr. Prashant Hagare and Ms. Ekta Patil, Advocates for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.  Ms. Ekta Patil i/b. Mr. Prashant Hagare, Advocates for Respondent No.2.  Ms. Mohini Dongre, PSI – Chinchwad Police Station. ................… CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Gaware - Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.289 of 2026 registered with Chinchwad Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. On the previous date, after hearing the learned Advocates at the bar the following order was passed:- 1 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc “1. Heard Mr. Gaware-Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State. 2. Applicant is father of the victim arraigned as Respondent No.2. First Informant is wife. Date of registration is 05.07.2026. With regard to the incident about which no specific date has been even stated in the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) and which relates to some time in March – 2025, It is alleged according to the prosecution case that Applicant – father while dropping his minor daughter to the School sometime in March – 2025 committed an aberration / act for which he has been indicted in relevant Sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. I have perused the FIR with the able assistance of Mr. Gaware-Patil. 3. The First Informant states that she learnt about it from the child on the very same date in the evening but in that case then the delay of more than 16 months is inexplicable. During the intervening period between the above two aforementioned timeline dates, judicial separation proceedings initiated in the Family Court between First Informant and Applicant as also a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) filed by First Informant merely 12 days before filing of the present FIR wherein Applicant had secured ad-interim order in Anticipatory Bail Application happened. The present FIR was registered on 05.07.2026 and since then for the past few months Applicant is behind bars. 4. Applicant is a press photographer by profession. Principal submission made by Mr. Gaware-Patil is that present FIR is nothing but a counter blast to the previous FIR filed under Section 498A of the IPC filed by First Informant where the Applicant procured interim / ad- interim relief from arrest. 5. An arguable case is clearly made out by Mr. Gaware-Patil for immediate intervention by the Court. Hence, I direct Mr. Gaware-Patil to forthwith give a copy of this Application alongwith this order to the concerned Investigating Officer. The concerned Investigating Officer is directed by the Court to reach out to the Respondent No.2 copy of this order and obtain her consent as to whether she requires legal representation or otherwise to represent and espouse the cause of victim herein. If not, she is directed to appoint her Advocate. The same shall be apprised to this Court through the learned APP on the next adjourned date. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and learned APP shall take appropriate instructions with regard to consent of Respondent No.2 and inform the Court on the next adjourned date. 6. Any attempt made by Respondent No.2 to delay hearing of the present matter will not be tolerated by this Court which shall be noted by her and the prosecution. Considering these aforementioned strong facts, this Court is inclined to take up the matter for hearing accordingly. 7. Stand over to 16th September 2026. To be placed under the caption ‘For Directions’ under the caption “First on Board”.” 4. Mr. Gaware – Patil, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant would submit that Applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He would submit that there is an unexplained 2 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc delay of fifteen (15) months in filing the FIR which brings prosecution case under the cloud of suspicion. He would submit that it is necessary for the Court to consider the precursor to this incident wherein the Applicant and First Informant are already engaged in prior criminal proceedings bearing C.R. No.271 of 2026 lodged at the instance of First – Informant against Applicant and his family members. He would submit that by order dated 23.06.2026, Sessions Court granted Anticipatory Bail to Applicant. He would submit that pursuant to grant of Anticipatory Bail, within a short span of 12 days of the said order this present FIR is filed thereby being nothing but a counter blast to the previous FIR and the Applicant having procured Anticipatory Bail. He would submit that present FIR is outcome of ongoing matrimonial discord between Applicant and First – Informant. He would submit that no corroborative evidence has been recovered at the instance of the Applicant. He would submit that in absence of exact date and time of the incident further weakens the prosecution case. He would therefore urge the Court to allow the present Bail Application. 5. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State would submit that the present crime in question is grave and serious considering the age of the minor daughter (victim). He would submit that there are serious allegations against the Applicant and hence considering the gravity of offence this Court maybe cautious in 3 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc allowing the Bail Application. He would submit that Applicant being the father of minor daughter (victim) may tamper with evidence and shall make attempts to influence the victim and the witnesses, such possibility cannot be ruled out. He would submit that there is substantial material placed on record to corroborate the prosecution case and thereby prove the guilt of Applicant and hence he would urge the Court to reject the Bail Application. 6. Ms. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 – First Informant would adopt the submissions made by Mr. Karmakar, learned APP, hence they are not reiterated for brevity, in furtherance to which she would submit that there are incriminating WhatsApp chats between Applicant and First – Informant which display the character of the Applicant which be considered by the Court. She would therefore urge the Court to reject the present Bail Application. 7. I have heard Mr. Gaware - Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court. 8. At the outset, on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that considering the alleged crime being serious in nature and even after 4 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc the minor daughter (victim) having informed the First Informant on that very day itself and First Informant having stated so in the FIR, she chose to stay quiet for a period of 15 months which is difficult to comprehend. Prima facie, there is an unexplained delay of about 15 months in setting the criminal law into motion in such a serious charge which borders on suspicion. The FIR does not disclose any specific date or time when the alleged incident is stated to have occurred and merely refers to the incident as having taken place sometime in March 2025. At the stage of considering the present Application the unexplained delay assumes significance when considered in the backdrop of the admitted matrimonial discord between Applicant and First Informant and the criminal proceedings which were already pending between them. 9. It is also material to note that C.R. No.271 of 2026 came to be registered at the instance of the First Informant against the Applicant and his family members under Section 498A and other offences. Applicant was granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned Sessions Court by order dated 23.06.2026. The present FIR was registered on 05.07.2026, i.e. within a period of 12 days from the said order. This proximity in time, coupled with the substantial and unexplained delay in reporting the alleged incident is a circumstance which cannot be completely disregarded while considering the 5 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc Applicant's case for bail. 10. Further, the FIR does not attribute the alleged incident to any particular date, time or occasion. The allegation is stated to have occurred sometime in March 2025 when Applicant was allegedly dropping the victim to school. The absence of any particulars as to the date and time of the alleged occurrence assumes significance, particularly when the FIR itself records that the First Informant came to know of the alleged incident from the victim on the very same day. Despite such knowledge, no immediate complaint was lodged and no explanation sufficient to account for the intervening period of about 15 months is placed before the Court. 11. With regard to the WhatsApp chats allegedly exchanged between Applicant and First Informant is considered, I am of the opinion that they do not hold significance at this stage merely because certain chats relate to acts between Applicant and First Informant and the same by themselves cannot establish that the alleged incident constituting the offence under the provisions of the POCSO Act had in fact occurred. The contents of such communications would necessarily have to be appreciated in the context of the entire material collected during investigation and their evidentiary value is a matter to be considered at stage of trial. At the stage of bail, such chats without any independent corroborative material directly connecting Applicant with 6 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc the alleged occurrence cannot be considered and also cannot be a ground to justify his continued incarceration. 12. It is trite law that while considering an Application for bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or undertake an elaborate appreciation as would be required at the stage of trial. The Court is required to consider the nature of the accusations the material collected during investigation the possibility of the Applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence and the other relevant circumstances. The gravity of the alleged offence is undoubtedly a relevant consideration. However, gravity alone cannot be the sole determinative factor for deciding an Application for bail. 13. Further, the apprehension expressed by the learned APP regarding the possibility of Applicant influencing the victim or other witnesses can be taken care of by imposing appropriate stringent conditions restraining Applicant from contacting the minor daughter (victim), First Informant or any prosecution witness. 14. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. The continued incarceration of Applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not warranted. 15. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the 7 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.289 of 2026; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two surety of the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Chinchwad Police Station, Pune on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. once every month from today until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not make any attempts to contact the victim, First Informant or any witnesses by any physical 8 of 9 32.BA.3412.2026.doc or electronic means and shall not attempt to influence them or tamper with evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in his residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant. 16. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 17. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 9 of 9 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.19 11:52:54 +0530