[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Keshav Somnath Nawale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 February, 2026
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
GAYATRI by GAYATRI
RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date: 2026.02.09
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
21:09:53 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 6817 OF 2025
Keshav Somnath Nawale ... Petitioner
V/S.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
---
Mr. Narayan Rokade i/b Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi a/w Mr.
Siddharth Ghodke, Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, Mr. Swapnil Kalokhe,
Mr. A. J. Shaikh Azad, Mr. Tribhavan Sharma, Ms. Ankita
Ugalmugale, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State.
Mr. Prabhakar Sonawane - PSI, Upnagar Police Station, Nashik
City.
---
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is
preferred by Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 8 th
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
December, 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nashik Road (Magistrate), in Criminal Case No. 529 of
2025, whereby the Application dated 25 th November, 2025, filed by
the Petitioner seeking release of his wife from protective home is
dismissed.
3. Petitioner's wife was rescued in a raid conducted by
the Upnagar Police Station, Nashik City. Crime No. 529 of 2025
was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and
5 of the under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for
short 'PITA Act, 1956'). Identity of the Petitioner's wife needs to be
concealed, as such she is referred to as the "person rescued".
4. Person rescued is in the protective home "Government
Vatshalya Mahila Vastigruh, Nashik" since 25.11.2025.
5. Petitioner filed an Application dated 25.11.2025 along
with an Affidavit dated 25.11.2025 seeking custody of the person
rescued.
6. Vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Crime No. 529
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
of 2025, the Magistrate directed the Probation Officer to carry out
inquiry with regards to the genuineness of the claim made by the
Petitioner in the context of the person rescued and to submit his
Report.
7. It appears that on 8th December, 2025, the Probation
Officer submitted his Report dated 4th December, 2025 in Crime
No. 529 of 2025.
8. Vide the impugned order dated 8th December, 2025
though the Magistrate granted permission to the person rescued to
attend the exams, however the Application dated 25 th November,
2025 was rejected. Reason assigned by the Magistrate to reject the
request made by the Petitioner, is found in paragraph No. 4 of the
said order, herein below :-
"4. After production of the victim, her statement was
recorded on the same day. She stated that she knows
nothing about accused no.2. But, when she was produced
before the Inquiry Panel, she admitted that her statement
given on first production was influenced by the
threatening given by accused no.2 Naziya Shah. Applicant
and accused no.2 Naziya Shah are resident of Sinnar, Dist.
Nashik. Therefore, there is possibility that the accused
no.2 may pressurize the victim to change her statement
and thereby cause tampering of prosecution witness.
Therefore, at this stage, this application, without going
through the merit of report of the Probation Officer, is
liable to be rejected."
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
9. Mr. Narayan Rokade, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner submits that the detention of the "rescued person' is
illegal and amounts to violation of her fundamental rights. He by
referring to the provision of Section 17 (3) of PITA Act, 1956
submits that the rescued person was required to be released within
three weeks. He submits that the Magistrate has failed to consider
the Report of the Probation Officer as also the case of the
Petitioner in terms of the law on the subject. He therefore submit
that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the custody
of the person rescued granted to the Petitioner.
10. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State,
submits that the Magistrate having failed to consider the Report
dated 4th December, 2025 of the Probation Officer submitted in
Crime No. 529 of 2025, the impugned order rejecting the
Application dated 25th November, 2025 be set aside, the matter be
remanded to the Magistrate with a direction to the Magistrate to
reconsider the said Application in accordance with PITA Act, 1956.
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
11. Mr. Narayan Rokade, is agreeable for the recourse
suggested by Mr. Sukanta Karmakar. He submits that the person
rescued has a minor child and as such the Magistrate be directed
to decide the Application dated 25 th November, 2025 within a
stipulated time.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8 th
December, 2025 passed in Crime No. 529 of 2025 on the
Application dated 25th November, 2025 is set aside. Consequently,
the Application dated 25th November, 2025 filed by the Petitioner
is restored on the file of the Magistrate. The Magistrate is directed
to consider the request made by Petitioner in the Application dated
25th November, 2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law
after affording a hearing to the concerned parties. The Report
dated 4th December, 2025 of the Probation Officer be considered
while adjudicating the said Application.
13. Considering the person rescued having a minor child,
the Magistrate is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the
Application dated 25th November, 2025 filed by the Petitioner in
22-WP-6817-2025.doc
Crime No. 529 of 2025, expeditiously and at any rate within a
period of 15 days from this order being placed before the
Magistrate.
14. Mr. Narayan Rokade, states that this order will be
placed before the Magistrate in Crime No. 529 of 2025 on 16 th
February, 2026.
15. With the above observations this Petition is partly
allowed. All contentions of the parties are left open.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
