[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Aslam Kitab Tadavi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5744
970 BA No.77.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2026
ASLAM KITAB TADAVI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jay R. Veer
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. N. D. Ragade (Appointed)
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 10th February, 2026
ORDER :
-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 16.09.2025 bearing Crime
No. 235 of 2025 registered with Adavad Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon
for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 96,
351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and
6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant
resides with his wife, their elder daughter (aged 15) and three other
minor children. The family earns their livelihood through
agricultural labour and resides together in a two-room dwelling
house.
3. It is alleged that on 14.09.2025, the family retired to
bed at approximately 21:00 hours after evening meal. The
informant, his wife, and their three younger children occupied the
front room of the house, while the elder daughter / victim slept
separately in the back room. Approximately at 23:45 hours, wife of
informant woke up and discovered that victim was missing from
bed. She immediately alerted the informant and together they
conducted an extensive search of the residence and the immediate
vicinity, but the girl could not be located.
4. During the initial enquiry, the informant learned that
accused Aslam Kitab Tadvi, was also missing from his home,
leading the family to suspect his involvement in the girl's
disappearance. Accordingly, the FIR came to be lodged against
unknown person. During the investigation, the victim's statement
was recorded, consequent to which the applicant was impleaded as
an accused.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Jay Veer
submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime
solely on the basis of suspicion, without any cogent evidence
linking him to the alleged crime. Such a vague and unsubstantiated
suspicion, devoid of any direct eyewitness account or "last seen"
evidence, does not satisfy the legal requirements for continued
incarceration. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is
filed. Nothing remains to be recovered at the applicant's instance.
As such, further incarceration of the applicant is unjustified. Hence,
it is prayed that the application be allowed.
6. The learned APP and the learned counsel for respondent
No. 2 have vehemently opposed the application, submitting that
the offence is serious in nature and it consists the victim of tender
age. The FIR establishes that the victim is a 15 years old minor. The
act of taking a minor out of the lawful guardianship of her parents
without their consent constitutes a serious offence under and the
protection of the minor's welfare remains the primary concern. If
the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of
tampering with the prosecution evidence. As such, it is prayed that
the application be rejected.
7. Considering the submissions of both sides and perusing
the material on record, including the charge sheet, it is a matter of
record the entire prosecution case against the applicant prima facie
is premised upon a suspicion expressed by the informant. The
informant narrated that because the applicant was not found at his
residence, he is suspected of kidnapping the minor victim.
8. Moreover, perusal of record prima facie indicates that
the victim was in a relationship with the accused. As such, prima
facie the victim consciously participated in the act. Thus, prima
facie, the factual matrix those are emerging does not reflect any
active inducement or coercive conduct on the part of the accused.
9. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the investigation of the
case is complete for all intent and purpose and eventually the
charge-sheet is also filed. Nothing remains to be recovered at the
instance of applicant. The arrest of the applicant is effected on
17.09.2025 and since then, he is in jail. Thus, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the accused behind the bar.
10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant's right to liberty needs to be upheld by
imposing stringent conditions. The apprehension expressed by
learned APP and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 about
tampering with the prosecution evidence can be adequately taken
care of by imposing certain stringent conditions. In that view of the
matter, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
11. The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, High
Court Bench at Aurangabad, to pay the fees to the learned counsel
appointed on behalf of respondent No. 2, as per rules.
12. Resultantly, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant - Aslam Kitab Tadavi be released on regular
bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent sureties
in the like amount, in connection with Crime No. 235
of 2025 registered with Adavad Police Station, Dist.
Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 65(1), 96, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the
following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move the
concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail,
notwithstanding the fact that this Court has passed
the order granting bail.
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
