The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a senior citizen running private tuition classes, who was booked under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, observing that an Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution could not be the sole material for denying bail. The Court noted that the chat did not explicitly describe the alleged offence or state its time, place or nature.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking enlargement on bail in connection with FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the POCSO Act. The Applicant runs private tuition classes from his residence. The prosecution alleged that between September and October 2024, during extra classes, the applicant locked the student in the classroom, forcibly kissed him and outraged him without his consent.

The applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated and that the Applicant's Instagram chat with his friend is a cooked up document prepared only after Applicant's sister decided to take action against the Applicant. He also relied upon the student's continuation in his private tuition classes and performance of 96.20% in the 10th Standard Board examinations.

The Court noted that there was an unreasonable delay of more than one-and-a-half years between the alleged act and registration of the FIR. It observed that although delay in lodging an FIR in a serious sexual offence case is often of little consequence, the principle is not absolute.

“… delay in lodging FIR in such a serious sexual offence case is often of little consequence, but however this principle is not absolute and where there is a discernible possibility of false implication, such a delay must be scrutinised very closely,” the Court remarked.

and, where there is a discernible possibility of false implication, such delay must be scrutinised closely.

On the Instagram chat, the Court found that the singular chat, on being seen prima facie, did not explicitly describe the commission of the offence. It observed:

“… this singular chat when seen, prima facie does not explicitly describe the commission of the offence with which Applicant is charged neither does this chat state the time, place or nature of the offence. Hence in my opinion this cannot be the sole material for considering denying bail to Applicant.”

The Court further noted that only two students, who were batchmates of the victim, had been examined from the students, and their statements did not reveal anything incongruous or objectionable against the applicant. It also noted that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the applicant had no prior antecedents.

The Court accordingly granted bail on a PR bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Case Title: Sunil Sundar Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 3066 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order