'Mindset Needs To Change': Bombay High Court Criticises Practice Of Prosecutors 'Vehemently' Opposing Bail Despite Long Incarceration

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) criticised the 'practice' of the public prosecutors to 'vehemently' oppose bail applications even in cases of long incarceration. The High Court said that even in cases where an accused is behind the bars for years altogether, the prosecutors oppose the bail applications citing the 'severity' of the crime. 

Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav made it clear that the prosecutors must change their mindset and this very approach in cases of bail. 

"While sitting as a Bail Court what I have experienced is that public prosecutors oppose bail pleas vehemently even in the cases of long incarceration pending trial under the mistaken impression that the crime in question is serious and therefore the Court should not grant bail to the accused person. This mindset and approach of the prosecution needs to change," Justice Jadhav observed.

The judge granted bail to a 26-year-old man booked in a case arising out of the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The judge noted that the accused was in jail since July 2025 over a complaint lodged by the family of a (now) 15-year-old girl, alleging that he raped her on several occasions. However, the judge noted that the victim in the case, herself stated that she was in a 'love relationship' with the accused for over five months and during this period, they had sexual intercourse on numerous occasions. 

"It is observed that in cases under POCSO, the statute itself provides a speedy trial within 1 year under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, but that is seldom achieved. Even in such cases where trials are pending over many years without even being commenced, the prosecutors raise vehement objection to Bail Applications on the ground of severity of the crime," the Court said.

While considering the merits of the case, the judge noted that there was a huge contradiction between the statements of the victim and her grandfather, who claimed that the sexual intercourse or the alleged rape took place in a flat just opposite to their house, which was owned by of the friends of the accused. However, the judge noted that the said flat's owner in his statements, clarified that the said flat is locked for last four years and it is under renovation and that none lived there. 

The bench also considered the fact that the medico-legal history of the victim, did not support her own case and also that of the prosecution. Based on these very grounds, the bench said that a strong prima facie case was made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 

However, the judge noted that despite such facts of the case, the prosecutor kept vehemently opposing the bail application moved by the applicant.

With these observations, the judge granted bail to the accused on a surety of Rs 25,000.

Appearance: 

Advocates Ganesh Gole and Ateet Shirodkar appeared for Applicant.

Advocate Keral Mehta was appointed to represent the Complainant. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Nakhwa represented the State.