[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Samyak Namdev Wasnik vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps ... on 17 January, 2026
1 12.ba.1317.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1317 OF 2025
Samyak Namdev Wasnik
..vs..
State of Maharashtra and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms S. Haider, APP for the State.
Shri Sanket Joshi, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. (appointed)
CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 17.01.2026.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned
APP and learned appointed Counsel appearing for the
victim.
2. By way of present application, the applicant is
seeking regular bail in connection with the Crime No.225
of 2025 registered with the Ramdaspeth Police Station,
District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections
65(1), 74, 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The offence was registered by the victim on
24.07.2025 alleging that she and the applicant were
known to each other since from one month. They both
followed each other on social media i.e. Instagram. The
victim had accepted the friend request on Instagram,
started calling the applicant and chatting with him from
the phone of her father. It is further alleged that on
23.07.2025, the applicant called the victim at about
11:30 am since they had decided to meet on that day.
2 12.ba.1317.2025
Accordingly, the applicant come to pick her up from her
house around 1.30 pm. He took her to watch a movie,
however, as the movie has already started, they decided
not to see movie and decided to go to the house of the
applicant. When they reached the house of the applicant,
no one was there, and they went inside the house. The
applicant started to kiss her and thereafter the applicant
pushed the victim on bed and committed forcible sexual
intercourse without the consent of the victim. Based on
these allegations, the FIR was registered. The
investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
though the victim is of 15 years and one month of age,
however, she is the consenting party. He further submits
that she herself had insisted him to take her to his
house, so that they could get some privacy. He has
invited my attention to the screenshots of messages
exchanged between the victim and the applicant. The
applicant is a college going boy and he is just 21 years of
age. He submits that it is a case of love affair and
considering the age of applicant and as there are no
criminal antecedents against him, he deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP strongly
objected to grant bail. She submits that the victim is just
15 years of age and the applicant in the first meeting
itself has committed penetrative sexual assault. The
punishment provided for the said offence is minimum 20
years of imprisonment extending to imprisonment for
life. She further submits that forceful sexual intercourse
3 12.ba.1317.2025
could be gathered from the medical evidence, wherein
there are injury marks shown on the private part of the
victim. Even the opinion is given by the Doctor that
forceful penetration of vagina and sexual violence cannot
be ruled out. Further it is submitted that the chats
between the applicant and the victim, which are
produced on record are not the part and parcel of the
charge-sheet and therefore, it cannot be believed. She
submits that even if the applicant is of 21 years of age,
still he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.
6. The learned appointed Counsel appearing for
the victim adopted the arguments advanced by learned
APP and prayed to reject the application for regular bail.
7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for
the applicant, learned APP for the State and the learned
appointed Counsel for non-applicant no. 2, admittedly, it
appears that the victim was of 15 years and 1 month of
age at the time of incident. On 23.07.2025, the applicant
has taken the victim to his house and committed
penetrative sexual assault. The medical evidence goes to
show that there are injuries on the private part of the
victim, and according to the opinion of the doctor, there
was forceful penetration in vagina. However, from the
entire record, it could be gathered that both are chatting
on Instagram. It appears that the victim was using mobile
phone of her father and was in constant contact with the
applicant on Instagram. It could be further gathered that
though the chats produced on record were not the part
of the charge-sheet, however for grant of bail those chats
can be considered, which depicts that the victim was in
4 12.ba.1317.2025
love with the applicant. The victim was insisting the
applicant to meet at a place, where they will get privacy
and therefore the chats revealed that she has stated that
"ex vki.k rq>;k ?kjh tkm". Therefore, it could be gathered
from the entire record that though the victim was of 15
years and one month of age, however she had a capacity
to understand everything what she was doing.
8. As was argued by the learned Counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is 21 years of age and
deserves bail, for this purpose, the learned Counsel has
relied upon three judgments i.e. Avinash Ajay Benewal
vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 191,
Pravesh Lalbahadur Jaiswar vs. State of Maharashtra
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3806 and Ramesh Thirupala Naik
vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 16459 .
In all these matters, the victims were between 15 to 16
years of age and the applicants were either 19, 20 or 21
years of age. This Court considered the age of the
applicants and released them on bail.
9. In the present matter, no doubt prima facie
there is material against the applicant, which implicates
the applicant for the alleged offences, however the fact
remains that now the investigation is complete and
charge-sheet is been filed, no purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant behind the bar. By putting
stringent conditions, the applicant can be released on
regular bail. Hence, the following order :
(a) The application is allowed and disposed of.
(b) The applicant/accused Samyak Namdev Wasnik
be released on regular bail in connection with
5 12.ba.1317.2025
Crime No.225 of 2025 registered with the
Ramdaspeth Police Station, District Akola for the
offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 75
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the
like amount.
(c) 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.
(d) The applicant/accused shall not enter into the
vicinity of Shankar Nagar, Aapatapa Road, Akot
File, Akola.
(e) The 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.
10. Fess of the appointed Counsel be quantified
as per the Rules.
(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 18:16:54
