[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Yusuf Dada Chaugule vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1036
38 BA No.2105.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2105 OF 2025
YUSUF DADA CHAUGULE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
***
Advocate for Applicant : Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh
a/w Ms. Meenal S. Deshmukh, Ms. Ashwini S. Deshmukh i/b Mr.
Shaikh Joyeb
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Nikita Ragade (Appointed)
***
CORAM : Sachin S, Deshmukh, J.
Dated : 12th January, 2026
ORDER :
-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 26.07.2024 bearing
Crime No. 283 of 2024 registered with Ghargaon Police Station,
Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 87, 123, 64(2), 351(2), 49, 74, 75, 78, 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case is that the victim was allegedly
coerced into a love relationship with the accused, Shadab, since
January 2020. It is further alleged that on a subsequent
occasion, the victim was lured to Manchar and later taken to
Chakar, where she was reportedly administered a stupefying
substance in her water. The prosecution states that the victim
was then taken to Mumbai, where she was sexually exploited at
various places. The applicant repeatedly transporting the victim
to these locations and using threats to compeled her to stay. It is
alleged that Shadab committed penetrative sexual assault during
this period of kidnapping, using the threat of circulating
compromised videos and photographs of the victim as a means of
extortion and control. Consequently, a First Information Report
(FIR) was lodged on 26.07.2024.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the offense. It is submitted that the applicant was previously
enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
1957/2025, subject to certain conditions. However, following
allegations that the applicant had threatened prosecution
witnesses, the prosecution preferred an application for the
cancellation of bail. By an order dated 19.06.2025 in Cri. M.A.
18/2025, the learned Trial Court cancelled the bail originally
granted to the applicant. Consequently, the present application
has been filed seeking grant of bail.
4. It is further submitted that the case has been grossly
exaggerated. The applicant categorically denies the allegations of
threatening witnesses, contending that the investigating agency
submitted its report under external pressure or duress.
Consequently, it is argued that the trial court's decision to cancel
the bail was erroneous. In support of these contentions, the
applicant places reliance on the following judgments :-
(I) Phireram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another Criminal Appeal No. 3830 of 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
9082 of 2025) decide by Hon'ble Apex Court on
02.09.2025
(II) Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2024)4 SCC 222]
5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the
application, submitting that the applicant has been involved in
the act of kidnapping and thereafter, sexually exploiting the
victim. The offence is serious in nature. 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.
6. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge sheet, it is
pertinent to note that the applicant was previously granted bail
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been attending the trial
proceedings regularly. The cancellation of bail was predicated
solely on the alleged threats to witnesses; however, in the
absence of substantial and cogent proof to support such claims,
therefore, a drastic measure cannot be sustained.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Phireram
(supra) has reiterated following factors governing cancellation of
bail :
56. This Court then summed up the principles or
circumstance governing the cancellation of bail as
under :-
"25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to
the accused under Section 439(1)CrPC can be
cancelled are enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in
similar/other criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the
witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court
proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper
smooth investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of
his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail
which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only
illustrative in nature and not exhaustive." (Emphasis
supplied)
8. Pertinently, since the applicant was granted bail by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Trial Court ought to have exercised
extra caution while dealing with the application for cancellation of
bail. The record further indicates that the trial has substantially
progressed. The alleged contravention, in the absence of cogent
evidence to corroborate the claim, ought to have been assessed
more judiciously.
9. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, incorporated
several stipulations while granting bail. A key condition mandated
that the applicant refrain from committing any further offenses or
engaging in prejudicial activities. However, following the
registration of a separate offense under Sections 25(1)(A) and 27
of the Arms Act at Warla Police Station, Madhya Pradesh, the
prosecution sought the cancellation of bail, alleging a breach of
this condition. While allowing the application, the Sessions Court
relied on the conjecture that the accused "most probably"
acquired the weapon to tamper with evidence by threatening
witnesses.
10. As such, every stipulations incorporated in the order
must not to have been read in isolation; rather, ought to have
been interpreted conjointly. The underlying intent of those
stipulations is to prevent the applicant from committing offenses
of a similar nature or those that directly interfere with the
administration of justice. In the present case, mere registration
of a subsequent, rather unrelated offence, without a proven
nexus to the on going trial or substantiated evidence of witness
intimidation, should not results in the revocation of bail.
11. The principle for cancellation of bail is restated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court after grant of the bail only in the event there
is supervening circumstances and very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted, those are reproduced
hereinabove.
12. None of the aforesaid eventuality has been
established by the prosecution. However, as has been recorded
in the order that the procurement of alleged weapon is possibly
aimed to tampering the prosecution evidence by threatening the
witness is rendered. While the alleged incident, even if, viewed
with gravity, it cannot serve as the sole basis to revoke the bail
previously granted, especially without definitive proof thereof. In
that view of the matter, the Sessions Judge has acted in
contravention of the aforestated settled principles of law,
warranting consideration of the application presented by the
applicant.
13. As such, the present application for bail deserves to
be allowed; however, subject to the imposition of stringent
conditions to ensure trial proceeds in a judicious manner and
remains untainted by any external interference.
14. Resultantly, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant - Yusuf Dada Chaugule 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. 283 of 2024 registered with Ghargaon Police
Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 137(2), 87, 123, 64(2), 351(2), 49,
74, 75, 78, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the following
conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station on every Friday from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm.
(b) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(c) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(d) 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.
(e) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of 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
