In a nuanced order balancing the rights of a young accused against the gravity of allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to an 18-year-old student. The Court emphasized the close age proximity between the accused and the 15-year-old victim, while imposing strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and protection of the victim’s interests.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Vaibhav Dilip Ugle, aged 18 years and 5 months, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 0107/2026, registered on 31.03.2026 at Police Station Jalamb, District Buldhana. The case was initially registered under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for alleged abduction, but later expanded to include Sections 74 and 75(1) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, based on the victim’s statement alleging outrage of modesty.
Key Facts
- The victim, a 15-year-old girl (aged 15 years and 9 months), was studying in the 10th standard at the relevant time.
- The informant, the victim’s father, lodged the FIR after receiving a telephone call from one Mayur Gajanan Nagolkar, who alleged that the applicant had abducted the victim and was traveling with her to Washim.
- The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant is a student and that there is a close age proximity between the applicant and the victim.
- During the investigation, the victim’s statement led to the addition of Sections 74 and 75(1) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging outrage of modesty.
- The victim’s age at the time of the incident rendered her a minor under the law, invoking the protections of the POCSO Act.
Procedural History
- 31.03.2026: FIR registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS for abduction.
- During investigation: Sections 74, 75(1) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act added based on the victim’s statement.
- 29.04.2026: The applicant filed Criminal Application (ABA) No. 336 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant, represented by counsel Mr. M.V. Rai, contended that he is a student and that there is a close age proximity between him and the victim.
- The applicant sought protection of his liberty, arguing that the allegations, while serious, must be viewed in the context of his age and the victim’s.
For the Respondent/State
- The State, represented by Mr. C.A. Lokhande, APP, opposed the application, arguing that the victim was a minor under the law and that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought ad-interim anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in connection with the aforementioned offences.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an 18-year-old accused in a case involving a minor victim under Sections 74 and 75(1) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, particularly when there is close age proximity between the accused and the victim.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant’s counsel emphasized the age proximity between the applicant (18 years and 5 months) and the victim (15 years and 9 months), arguing that this factor should be considered in granting anticipatory bail.
- The counsel also highlighted the applicant’s status as a student, urging the Court to protect his liberty pending further investigation.
For the Respondent/State
- The State contended that the victim was a minor, and thus, the allegations under POCSO Act and BNS were grave, warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
- The State argued that a prima facie case was established against the applicant, based on the victim’s statement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court carefully balanced the competing interests of protecting the victim’s rights under the POCSO Act and the applicant’s right to liberty. The Court noted the following:
- Age Proximity: The Court observed that the applicant and the victim were of close age, which could be a relevant factor in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Nature of Allegations: While the allegations were serious, the Court considered the applicant’s status as a student and the need to ensure that his liberty was not unjustly curtailed during the investigation.
- Cooperation with Investigation: The Court emphasized the importance of the applicant cooperating with the investigating agency and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Court relied on the principle that anticipatory bail is not to be denied merely on the gravity of the offence, especially when the accused is young and there is no immediate risk of flight or tampering with evidence. The Court also underscored the need to protect the victim’s interests while ensuring a fair investigation.
"Considering the fact that applicant is student and there is close proximity in age of the applicant and the victim, till reply is filed, I am inclined to protect liberty of applicant."
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant shall furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount.
- The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 2nd and 3rd May 2026, between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
- The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency, refrain from tampering with prosecution evidence, and not influence witnesses.
- The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
The Court issued notice to the non-applicants, returnable on 06.05.2026, and waived service of notice on behalf of the State.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Proximity as a Mitigating Factor
- This judgment establishes that close age proximity between the accused and the victim can be a relevant factor in granting anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving young adults and minors.
- Practitioners should argue that automatic denial of bail based solely on the gravity of the offence (e.g., under POCSO Act) may not be justified when the accused is also young and there is no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence.
Balancing Victim’s Rights and Accused’s Liberty
- Courts are increasingly recognizing the need to balance the rights of minor victims under statutes like the POCSO Act with the liberty interests of young accused persons, especially when both parties are of similar age.
- This case underscores that anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious offences if the accused is cooperative and there is no risk of obstruction of justice.
Conditions for Cooperation
-
The Court imposed strict conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including regular attendance at the police station and a prohibition on leaving the country. These conditions serve as a template for future bail orders in similar cases.
-
Practitioners must ensure that clients comply with such conditions to avoid revocation of bail.
-
Key Takeaways for Practitioners:
- Argue age proximity as a mitigating factor in bail applications.
- Emphasize the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
- Highlight the absence of flight risk or tampering with evidence.
- Ensure compliance with bail conditions to avoid adverse orders.
