The Bombay High Court recently while denying bail to a man booked for sexually assaulting a minor girl from his neighbourhood, observed that granting him bail would send a wrong message to the society at large as he has decimated the sanctity of the pure relationship between neighbourhood uncle and a minor girl, who are like a father and daughter. 

Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav expressed that he has been granting bail on the ground of long incarceration in several other criminal cases yet the present case is an exception.

"Though this Court has in numerous cases taken cognizance of the fundamental right to speedy trial and personal liberty granted to undertrial – accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the long incarceration suffered by the undertrial – accused and released them on bail owing to no possibility of completion of trial in the near foreseeable future, the case at hand carves out an exception in my opinion. The trust and faith reposed in the Applicant is completely eroded and shattered by him. The allegations of offence in the present case is of such a serious nature that grant of bail would amount to sending a wrong message or signal to the Society at large as the sanctity of pure and innocent relationship as delineated is decimated by the Applicant before me by sexually assaulting the victim aged 6 years old who adored him and called him 'Atul Nana' which literally means a father figure," Justice Jadhav observed. 

The bench was hearing a plea filed by a resident of Pune, who sought bail on the ground that he has been in prison for the last year 3 years, 3 months. 

The judge, however, noted that Applicant's act came to light when the victim girl was playing with another neighbourhood girl in her house and locked the door from inside. It is when her mother scolded her for closing the door from inside, that the girl revealed that often Applicant would call her in her house and touch her private parts on the pretext of checking if she has sustained any injury on her thighs. 

The mother, therefore, informed about the same to her husband and other family members and lodged the criminal proceedings. The accused in his bail application, however, argued that he was falsely implicated as there was some rift between the two neighbouring families (accused and complainant) and to settle scores, the complainant lodged a bogus case against him. 

However, after perusing the material on record, Justice Jadhav opined that the allegations are so serious that it shook the conscience of the Court.

"Their neighbourly relations were spoken highly even by First Informant - mother of victim due to the trust established between their families as seen from First Informant's statement. Victim is merely 6 years old, whereas Applicant is 40 years old. Such relations led to the victim spending her time in the Applicant's household. The trust shown by her family in the Applicant was about setting an example for neighbourly brotherhood relations in today's times. Sadly, the Applicant's behaviour eroded the trust between the families," the judge observed. 

The judge found prima facie strong case against Applicant, who the judge said was a fatherly figure to victim but committed the assault which in the opinion of the Court would have scarred the tender mind of the victim which is clearly exhibited by her behaviour as stated by her mother.

"Rather such an act is an act against the Society at large as one of the principal object of the POCSO Act is to ensure that the tender age of the child is not abused and their childhood is protected against exploitation," the judge said while rejecting the bail plea. 

Appearance: 

Advocate Chaitanya Mulawar appeared for Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sangita Phad represented the State.

Advocate Tithi Raut was appointed through Legal Aid for representing the Victim. 

Case Title: A vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application 3403 of 2026)