The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has granted interim anticipatory bail to an applicant facing charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Court highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR and the possibility of the case being a counter-blast to a complaint filed by the applicant’s wife, warranting interim protection until the prosecution is heard.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Hanif Abdul Shaikh Alias Kalya, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0491/2025 registered at Pachora Police Station, Jalgaon District. The FIR alleges offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Key Facts
- The applicant’s wife had previously lodged a complaint against the informant’s family members, which the applicant alleges triggered the present FIR as a counter-blast.
- The applicant has no prior criminal history.
- The present FIR was lodged with a delay, raising questions about the genuineness of the allegations.
Procedural History
- 2025: FIR registered at Pachora Police Station, Jalgaon District (Crime No. 0491/2025).
- 23.07.2026: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1341 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
- 23.07.2026: Court issues notice to respondents, returnable on 27.08.2026.
The Parties' Positions
- Applicant’s Submission: The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged with delay and appeared to be a counter-blast to the complaint filed by his wife. He also submitted that he has no criminal antecedents.
- State’s Opposition: The State opposed the grant of interim relief, relying on the allegations in the FIR and the prosecution’s submissions before the Sessions Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the delay in lodging the FIR and the possibility of false implication warranted protection until the prosecution was heard.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant was entitled to interim anticipatory bail given the delay in lodging the FIR and the allegation of it being a counter-blast to a prior complaint filed by his wife.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR was lodged with significant delay and appeared to be a retaliatory measure against the complaint filed by his wife. He further submitted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, which weighed in favor of granting bail.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the grant of interim relief, relying on the allegations in the FIR and the prosecution’s submissions before the Sessions Court. The State contended that the applicant’s submissions did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the prima facie record and noted the delay in lodging the FIR. It observed that the possibility of the case being a counter-blast to the applicant’s wife’s complaint could not be ruled out. The Court also considered the applicant’s lack of criminal history.
"Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is delay in lodging of the present First Information Report and there is reason to believe that this could be a case of counter blast to the report lodged by way of Applicant."
The Court concluded that the applicant’s liberty warranted protection until the prosecution was heard in the matter.
The Verdict
The Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, Hanif Abdul Shaikh Alias Kalya, with the following conditions:
- Release on a PR Bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety in the like amount.
- The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called.
- The applicant shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The applicant shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner.
- The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency for further investigation.
- The State was directed to communicate the order to the concerned Investigating Officer.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in FIR Raises Credibility Questions
- Courts must scrutinize the timeliness of FIR lodging as a factor in granting anticipatory bail.
- Delay may indicate ulterior motives, such as counter-blast allegations.
Counter-Blast FIRs Warrant Scrutiny
- Allegations of retaliatory or counter-blast FIRs must be examined prima facie before denying bail.
- The absence of criminal history strengthens the case for interim protection.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail Must Be Strictly Complied With
- Applicants must adhere to non-interference with witnesses and cooperation with investigations.
- Failure to comply may result in cancellation of bail.
