Bombay High Court
Unnikrishnan Rajeevkumar Bhaskaran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 August, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:33481
905_BA_849_25.doc
PPK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 849 OF 2025
Unnikrishnan Rajeevkumar Bhaskaran
@ Rajiv Unnikrishnan ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents
Mr. Nishad Nevgi a/w. Ms. Samaa Shah and Ms. Gargi
Nandapurkar, i/b. Ms. Samaa Shah and Mr. Junaid
Badgujar for applicant.
Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Suraj S. Ghogare a/w. Mr. Sirajuddin Shaikh and
Mr. Manish Singh, i/b. Mr. D. P. Kamath for respondent
No.2.
Mr. Bajrang Desai, PSI, Samata Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 06, 2025
P.C.:
1. By the present application filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks regular bail
in connection with Crime Register No.634 of 2021 registered with
Samata Nagar Police Station. The applicant has been booked for
serious offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n),
500, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 4, 6, 8, and
12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act"); and Sections 43A
905_BA_849_25.doc
and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has drawn the
attention of this Court to the deposition of the victim and her
mother, as recorded during trial. It is submitted that the statements
do not prima facie disclose ingredients of the graver charges under
Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which relate to penetrative
sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
According to the learned advocate, at the highest, the allegations
would attract offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act,
which are of lesser gravity. It is further pointed out that the
applicant has been in custody since 2nd September 2021, and has
undergone incarceration for nearly 3 years and 11 months. He
therefore submits that in view of the fact that the key prosecution
witnesses, the victim and her mother, have already been examined,
there is no likelihood of tampering with their testimony, and the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the learned
counsel for Respondent No.2 have opposed the bail application. It
is their submission that the allegations against the applicant are
grave and concern offences against a minor girl. It is submitted
that the evidence recorded in part during the trial is yet to be
weighed in totality by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, this
Court should not undertake a detailed scrutiny of such evidence at
this stage. They further contend that considering the nature of
allegations and the impact of such offences on the minor victim, no
indulgence should be shown in granting bail at this stage.
905_BA_849_25.doc
4. I have carefully perused the charge-sheet and considered the
material placed on record. It is an admitted position that the
applicant is in custody since 02.09.2021, and has remained
incarcerated for a period exceeding 3 years and 11 months. The
charge-sheet has already been filed, and the victim and her
mother, the primary witnesses, have been examined during the
trial. The submission of the applicant that the statements of the
victim do not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 4 and 6
of the POCSO Act shall no doubt be considered on its own merit at
the stage of final judgment by the Trial Court. However, for the
limited purpose of considering bail, the fact that the gravest part of
the evidence has already been recorded and that no further risk of
influence over such witnesses exists, is a relevant factor.
5. It is also well settled that while deciding bail applications,
the Court must strike a balance between the right of the accused to
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and
the need to ensure a fair trial. In the present case, the applicant
has undergone substantial period of custody, and the prosecution
does not point out any instance of the applicant attempting to
tamper with evidence or delay the trial. The trial is likely to take
further time for completion. Continued incarceration, particularly
in absence of any further role of the accused in disturbing the trial
process, would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is
impermissible.
6. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the
nature of evidence recorded, the stage of trial, and the period of
incarceration already undergone by the applicant, I am of the
905_BA_849_25.doc
considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
7. Hence, the following order is passed:
8. The applicant Unnikrishnan Rajeevkumar Bhaskaran @ Rajiv
Unnikrishnan is directed to be released on regular bail in
connection with Crime Register No.634 of 2021, upon furnishing a
personal bond of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only)
with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall report Samata Nagar Police Station
once in three months between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon,
until further orders.
b) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to influence any witness. He shall not contact the
victim or her family members.
c) The applicant shall not enter the limits of Samata
Nagar Police Station during the pendency of the trial, except
for the purpose of attending the police station.
d) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on
every date of hearing unless prevented by sufficient cause.
e) The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction
of the Trial Court without prior permission.
f) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity
during the pendency of the trial.
905_BA_849_25.doc
g) Any breach of these conditions shall result in the
prosecution moving for cancellation of bail before the Trial
Court.
9. The bail application is allowed and disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
