✦ Bombay High Court · 03 Sep 2025

Iresh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

SHIVKUMAR DIGE3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
03 Sep 2025
Bench
SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Outcome

Bail granted

If applicant is released on bail,

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

Judgment

Ms. Ahilya Nalawade for the applicant Ms. Priyanka Rane APP for the State Mr. Ram K. Goplani for respondent no. 2 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 174/2023 registered with Kurlap Police Station, District Sangli for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(w)(ii), 3(2), 3(V) 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL 19:30:54 +0530

55.2677.24 ba.doc Civil Rights Act, 1955.

2.

It is the prosecution’s case that during period 2021-2023, applicant sexually assaulted the victim on the promise of marriage. Due to sexual assault, victim got pregnant and delivered child. At the time of incident, victim was around 16 years old.

3.

It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that there was love affair between victim and appellant. At the time of first sexual assault, appellant was 17 years old. Applicant is behind the bar for more than 1 year and 8 months. It may take time to conclude the trial. Applicant’s father has filed undertaking stating that applicant is ready to marry with the victim. Hence, requested to allow the application.

Operative part

4.

It is the contention of learned APP along with respondent no. 2 that applicant sexually assaulted the victim on various occasions under the promise of marriage. Applicant was aware that the victim was minor. Inspite of that he sexually assaulted her. Victim has delivered a child. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond, threaten prosecution witnesses and requested

55.2677.24 ba.doc to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused F.I.R. and documents produced on record. At the time of incident, victim was more than 16 years old whereas applicant as per the defence, was around 17 years old. Now the applicant is 19 years old. Applicant is behind the bar for more than 1 year and 8 months. It may take time to conclude the trial. If applicant remains behind the bar, his educational life will be ruined. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.

6.

Considering these facts, further detention of applicant is not required and I pass following order :

O R D E R I. Application is allowed. II. Applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 174/2023 registered with Kurlap Police Station, District Sangli on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. III. Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

55.2677.24 ba.doc IV. Applicant shall attend the Trial Court dates, regularly.

7.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

8.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

9.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: If applicant is released on bail,

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 376, 376(2)(n); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 4, 8, 12; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Civil Rights Act, 1955.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 03 Sep 2025. The bench was SHIVKUMAR DIGE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments