[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dinesh Jain vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Khamgaon ... on 10 February, 2026
1 ba 02.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application (BA ) No.02/2026
Dinesh Jain V State of Maharashtra thr PSO PS Khamgaon City, District Buldhana and
another
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Ms Bawankule, APP for State.
Ms. Shubhada Phaltankar, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.
CORAM : M. M. Nerlikar, J.
DATE : 10-02-2026.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the
state and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
2. By this application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, B.N.S.S. Act'), the applicant is seeking
bail in connection with Crime No.427/2025 registered with the non-
applicant police Station for offences punishable under Sections 74, 75 of
the B.N.S.S. Act r/w Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act (for short, 'POCSO' Act').
3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that, complainant Rupali
who happens to be regular customer of the applicant and was a credit
holder for purchasing grocery from the shop of the applicant. The
applicant is residing at Sutala Khurd which is a small locality of lower
middle class people, and applicant is constrained to sell grocery on credit
basis till the arrival of monthly wages of his customer. As such the
complainant and her husband used to purchase day-today groceries from
the shop of the applicant. The applicant has maintained credit account of
the complainant's family in the name of her husband and a regular diary
2 ba 02.26.odt
has been maintained by the applicant containing all the details of entries
of purchase on credit basis by the complainant's family. Till the date of
registration of the instant crime i.e. on 21-10-2025, the amount
outstanding in the name of complainant's husband was Rs.9,618/-. It
was seen that the complainant and her husband were reluctant to pay the
said amount as it was deemed to be excessive by the complainant.
Therefore, the applicant was repeatedly demanding the outstanding
amount in the name of complainant's husband. In order to avoid payment
of the said outstanding amount and ultimately dodge the outstanding
amount, the complainant lodged report on 21-10-2025 against the
present applicant.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the offence
alleged against the applicant is punishable up to 05 years. Now, the
investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed. He submits that though
there are certain allegations but those allegations were made with a
malafide intention as the parents of the victim was to pay Rs. 9000/- as he
is running a grocery shop and he has given the grocery on credit to them
and when demanded, they have lodged the FIR. He submits that
considering the nature of the allegation and the age of the applicant, it is
impossible to do such an act. He further relies on the order of this Court
in the case of Vijay Shalikram Rehapade vs State of Maharashtra and
another, (Criminal Application (BA) No.730/2025).
5. On the other hand, learned APP and the learned Counsel
appearing for respondent no.2/victim vehemently oppose the application
and invited my attention to the statement of the victim who was aged
3 ba 02.26.odt
about 06 years. They further submit that considering the age of the victim
as well as the applicant, it was not expected from the applicant to do such
a heinous act. They further submit that the FIR was lodged by the mother
of the victim immediately. Though the investigation is over and
chargesheet is filed, that by itself is not sufficient to grant the bail to the
applicant, considering the heinousness of the crime and therefore prayed
to reject the application.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. This Court while
considering the somewhat identical facts in the case of Vijay Shalikram
Rehapade (supra), has released accused on bail considering the fact that
offence is punishable up to 07 years, however, in the present case, it is
punishable up to 05 years. So far as the victim is concerned, here in this
case the victim is of 06 year old and allegations are in respect of touching
the private part of the victim by the applicant. Therefore, considering the
fact that the applicant was arrested on 21-10-2025 and the investigation is
over and the chargesheet is filed and the fact that the offence is
punishable up to 05 years, I am inclined to grant bail on the stringent
conditions.
(i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant/accused be released on regular bail in Crime
No.427/2025 registered with Police Station, Khamgaon City,
Dist. Buldhana, for the offences punishable under Sections 74,
75 of the B.N.S.S. Act r/w Section 8 of the POCSO' Act' on his
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount.
4 ba 02.26.odt
(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the village Sutala Khurd,
Taluka Khamgaon, District Buldhana.
(iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.
(v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell
number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his
place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned
Investigating Officer.
(vi) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial
regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive
dates or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his
default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
(vii) Fees of the appointed counsel be paid as per Rules.
7. The observations of this order is restricted to the present application
only.
(M.M. Nerlikar, J.)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/02/2026 19:42:08
