[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Laxmikant Jaychandra Sawji vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 16 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:1491
1 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1994 OF 2025
LAXMIKANT JAYCHANDRA SAWJI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajebhosale Sandeep B.
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. S. P. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Gargi Gujare
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON 16th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON 16th JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. The Applicant has approached this Court, seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.307/2025
registered with MIDC Police Station, District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 376
read with 34 the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)
(i)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in Special Case
(Sessions) No.1066/2025 pending before this Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 under Sections 8, 12 of the Protection of
2 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Informant, a
lady aged 34 years, belongs to the Scheduled Caste. She was
having a love affair with the Applicant's brother-accused, Nitin
Savji, since the year 2007. However, as Nitin Savji belongs to an
upper caste, her parents performed her marriage with a person
of her own caste in the year 2010. She co-habited with her first
husband for about two years. In 2012, she left the company of
her first husband and thereafter resided with her daughter,
aged six years, born from her relationship with Nitin Savji. She
co-habited with Nitin Savji up to the year 2024, but
subsequently differences arose between them. The Informant
further alleged that in the year 2020, Nitin Savji's brother-
accused, Pravin Savji, committed rape upon her in their house
at Om Sai Nagar, Ranjangaon, and for that purpose Nitin Savji
also forced her. In the year 2022, Nitin Savji's cousin, Raju
Savji, also committed rape upon her, and Nitin Savji remained
silent. It is further alleged that Nitin Savji abused her on the
basis of her caste and assaulted her. On 14.04.2024, Nitin
Savji's another brother, the present Applicant Laxmikant,
sexually assaulted the private part of her minor daughter. He
also committed rape upon the Informant and made a video
thereof.
3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that all
other accused in the present crime have been released on bail,
3 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
except for the present Applicant. Insofar as the role of the
present Applicant is concerned, the prosecutrix has stated in
the FIR that on 14.04.2024, at about 07:00 p.m., the Applicant,
Laxmikant, came to her house at Omsai Nagar, Waluj, removed
the knicker of the prosecutrix's minor daughter, touched her
private part, and threatened the prosecutrix to permit him to
have sexual intercourse, failing which he would spoil the life of
her daughter. Having no other option, the prosecutrix states
that she allowed the Applicant to have sexual intercourse with
her.
. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Applicant that the incident dated 14.04.2024 allegedly took
place at Omsai Nagar, Waluj. However, the said house at Waluj
had already been sold to another person, and neither the
prosecutrix nor her daughter was residing there on
14.04.2024. Therefore, the allegations in the FIR are falsified
and are a figment of the prosecutrix's imagination, made with
the intention of somehow framing all the family members of the
present Applicant.
4. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Applicant that the Informant had earlier filed a D.V. proceeding
against the brother of the Applicant, namely Nitin Savji, on
10.05.2024. However, there is not even an averment in the said
proceeding regarding rape upon her or sexual assault upon her
daughter allegedly committed on 14.04.2024 at Om Sainagar,
Waluj. The FIR itself was filed on 03.04.2025, i.e., after one
4 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
year of the alleged incident. Thus, there is a delay of about one
year in lodging the FIR for the incident dated 14.04.2024, and a
delay of about five years in respect of the alleged incident of
rape committed by Pravin, as mentioned in the FIR. The
allegations in the FIR are vague, and therefore this Court may
release the Applicant on bail.
5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Applicant that the earlier bail application of the Applicant was
rejected by this Court only on the ground that there were
additional allegations against him of sexual assault on the
minor daughter. The prosecution has now filed the charge-sheet
by adding POCSO charges against the present Applicant. A
perusal of the statement of the minor girl would show that no
such offence was committed by the Applicant, and the
allegations in the FIR have been deliberately made to rope in
the entire family in the present crime. The statement of the
minor son of the victim also does not corroborate the
allegations made in the FIR. Hence, the offence under the
POCSO Act is not made out against the Applicant. The Applicant
thereafter moved a fresh successive bail application before the
learned Sessions Court after filing of the charge-sheet, which
was rejected by the learned Sessions Court by observing that
the allegations under the Atrocities Act are made out against
the Applicant and, as such, the bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act comes into play. Therefore, the anticipatory bail
application is not maintainable. The successive bail application
5 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
of the Applicant came to be rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge, Gangapur vide order dated 03.11.2025 after filing of the
charge-sheet and addition of the relevant sections under the
POCSO Act. The Applicant has thus approached this Court after
rejection of his anticipatory bail application vide order dated
03.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gangapur.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Applicant that despite the bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act and the allegations under the said Act, the
learned Sessions Court as well as this Court had granted bail to
other accused persons who were also charged with the offence
of rape. Thus, going by the judgment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v.
Union of India 2020 (4) SCC 727, this Court can examine
whether the offence under the Atrocities Act is made out
against the Applicant and may release the Applicant on
anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the bar under Section 18 of
the Atrocities Act.
7. As against this, the learned APP and also learned
Appointed Counsel appearing for victim vehemently oppose the
present application on the ground that the Applicant is
involved in a serious offence under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act and POCSO Act. There are specific allegations
against all the accused persons that they had knowledge of the
complainant belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The statement
6 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
of the victim has also been recorded under Section 183 of the
BNS, which corroborates the allegations made in the FIR. Thus,
the Applicant may not be released on bail.
8. I have considered the order passed by this Court dated
08.08.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.429/2025. I have also
considered the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution against
the Applicant, wherein charges under the POCSO Act were
added apart from the initial offences under Section 376 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Atrocities Act.
Since the provisions of the POCSO Act were subsequently added
in the charge-sheet, the Applicant has filed the present
anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNS in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Aniket s/o Shahadev Labade Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1005/2023, instead of
filing an appeal under Section 14A of the Atrocities Act. A
perusal of the FIR shows that there are vague allegations of
rape without sufficient particulars. This Court has already
doubted whether a case is made out as alleged and granted bail
to accused Ravindra Savji (Raju Savji), who is also alleged to
have committed rape upon the prosecutrix as per the FIR,
despite the bar under Section 18A of the Atrocities Act. On the
basis of the said order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this Court
in Criminal Appeal No.363/2025 granting bail to accused
Ravindra, the learned Sessions Court has also granted bail to
another accused, Pravin Savji, against whom there are similar
7 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
allegations of rape and consequently offences under the
Atrocities Act. This was done despite the bar under Section 18A
of the Atrocities Act, by observing that there is no prima facie
material to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged
against the Applicant and that the provisions of the Atrocities
Act cannot be invoked to deprive him of pre-arrest bail.
9. The learned Sessions Court has relied upon the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
Prithvi Raj Chauhan, reiterated in Sajan Skariya v. State of
Kerala, reported in 2024(3) Cri.427 SC, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pleased to hold that if the complaint does
not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the
provisions of the Atrocities Act, 1989, then the bar created by
Sections 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply, and thus the Court
would not be precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the
accused persons. A perusal of the FIR shows that almost
identical allegations are made against the present Applicant of
committing rape in the year 2024. There is gross delay of one
year in lodging the FIR. This Court had granted bail to accused
Ravindra Savji on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR vide
order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.363/2025. This Court had also observed that, even though
the Applicant had allegedly abused the prosecutrix in the name
of her caste, the entire complaint prima facie appears to be
vague and without sufficient particulars, thereby creating
doubt as to whether the offences alleged are made out, and
8 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
accordingly granted bail to accused Pravin Savji, who is also
alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix.
10. The further contention of the Applicant also appears to
be worthy of consideration, namely that the child against whom
it is alleged by the prosecutrix that the Applicant committed
sexual assault has deposed in her statement that no such
assault was committed by the present Applicant either upon
her or upon the daughter of the victim. The daughter of the
victim only refers to one incident wherein she had broken a
glass and was beaten by her uncle, i.e., the present Applicant.
The statement of the son of the prosecutrix also does not
support the allegations made in the FIR. The allegations are
vague and inherently improbable. Though the Applicant had
filed domestic violence proceedings on 10.05.2024, the
prosecutrix did not make any allegations of rape committed
upon her or her daughter either by the Applicant or by the
other accused persons, namely the brother of the Applicant. It
appears that only after the reply was filed by the present
Applicant in the D.V. proceedings on 24.03.2025, the
prosecutrix filed the FIR against all the accused persons, who
are family members of Applicant No.1/Nitin Savji, on
03.04.2025.
11. Thus the perusal of the entire charge-sheet filed by the
prosecution against the other accused persons does not show
any evidence collected which would corroborate the allegations
9 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
in the FIR. The other accused persons, who are identically
alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix, have also
been released on bail. This Court has already observed in the
earlier proceedings that no offence under the Atrocities Act, as
alleged, is made out and hence granted bail to accused Pravin
Savji, despite the bar under Section 18 of the Act. The charge-
sheet filed by prosecution does not make out any prima facie
under Atrocities Act nor substantiates any allegations under
POCSO Act. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise powers under
Section 482 of the BNS to grant anticipatory bail to the
Applicant. The apprehension of the learned APP that the
Applicant would tamper with the prosecution evidence and
may threaten the prosecutrix can be taken care of by imposing
appropriate stringent conditions. Hence the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Laxmikant
Jaychandra Sawji in connection with Crime No.307/2025
registered with MIDC Police Station, District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 376
read with 34 the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)
(i)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case
(Sessions) No.1066/2025 pending before this Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 under Sections 8, 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, he be released on bail
10 936.ABA-1994-2025.doc
on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
with two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following
conditions :
(a) The Applicant shall attend MIDC Police Station, District
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on every Saturday between 11:00
am. to 01:00 pm. till the framing of the charge.
(b) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not influence the witnesses.
(c) The Applicant shall submit his Aadhar and PAN Cards to
the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone
numbers of himself and two of the near relatives.
(d) A single violation of the conditions would entitle the
prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.
(e) The fees of the appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2
shall be quantified as per Rules to be paid by the High Court
Legal Aid Sub Committee.
(ii) The application is allowed in the above terms and
stands disposed of.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN
JUDGE
Najeeb..
