The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has granted bail to a 36-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, citing fundamental inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, presiding over the criminal appellate matter , determined that the discrepancies present in the statements provided by the complainant and the victim were sufficient to cast doubt on the case at the preliminary bail stage . The applicant, Ganesh Kailas Pawar, has been in judicial custody since October 31, 2025 , following the registration of a First Information Report at the Satana Police Station in Nashik.

The charges against the applicant involve serious provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , specifically relating to sexual assault, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 . Throughout the proceedings, the applicant maintained that the allegations were entirely false, asserting that his wife, the complainant, had fabricated the accusations to retaliate against him due to ongoing matrimonial discord and his documented struggles with alcoholism.

Scrutinizing the Narrative Contradictions

The court’s decision to grant relief followed a meticulous examination of the testimonies recorded during the investigation. Justice Jadhav highlighted that the timeline provided in the initial complaint, as compared to subsequent statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , suffered from severe chronological volatility. The prosecution’s theory regarding the frequency of the alleged assaults and the duration between the incidents shifted repeatedly as the investigation progressed.

Specifically, the court observed that while the complainant alleged the victim informed her of the assault immediately after a visit to her maternal home, other versions provided by the victim and supporting family witnesses—who were described as interested parties—differed sharply on these core details. The interval between the two alleged incidents was stated variously as two to three days, eight days, and fifteen days across different iterations of the testimonies.

Reflecting on the nature of these discrepancies, Justice Jadhav noted in his order: "There appears to be a clear inconsistency in the statements of the victim." The judge observed that these material improvements and contradictions necessitated a cautious approach. While the state counsel and the legal aid advocate representing the minor victim argued that trauma and social stigma explained the delays and inconsistencies in reporting, the court held that such explanations could not fully account for the diametrically opposed factual accounts regarding the basic sequence of events.

Addressing the Motive Behind Allegations

A central theme in the court’s assessment was the underlying domestic environment. The judgment acknowledged that the applicant was an alcoholic and that his behavior had previously caused significant distress within the family, leading to incidents of domestic violence. However, the court maintained a clear distinction between the applicant’s known conduct and the gravity of the charges leveled under the POCSO Act.

The judge expressed skepticism regarding the intent behind the criminal complaint, suggesting it may have been motivated by a desire to penalize the applicant for his previous conduct rather than reflecting an objective account of the alleged sexual crimes. In his analysis, Justice Jadhav stated: "In my opinion, the case against the Applicant appears to have been fabricated with the intention of teaching him a lesson." The court emphasized that even in the face of familial domestic volatility, the judicial process cannot be utilized to substantiate severe sexual assault allegations without consistent and credible supporting evidence.

Bail Terms and Judicial Directives

The order allows for the release of the applicant on a personal recognizance bond of ₹25,000, accompanied by a surety of the same amount. The court has imposed several stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial. The applicant is required to report to the Investigating Officer at the Satana Police Station on the first Saturday of every month and is strictly prohibited from attempting to contact, intimidate, or influence the victim or any other witnesses involved in the case. Furthermore, the applicant is barred from leaving the State of Maharashtra without prior authorization from the trial court and must provide updated contact information to the investigating authorities throughout the pendency of the matter.

The court explicitly cautioned that these observations were limited to the purpose of determining bail eligibility and should not be interpreted as a final determination on the merits of the case. The trial is expected to proceed independently, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining with the prosecution.

Concluding the order, Justice Jadhav emphasized the need for a balanced legal approach: "The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits." By prioritizing the procedural requirement for consistent testimony, the Bombay High Court has set the stage for a trial that will focus on the factual evidence, while ensuring the protection of the judicial process against potentially fabricated charges. The legal aid services provided to the respondent were formally recognized by the court, with instructions for compensation issued according to established regulatory frameworks. The applicant remains subject to these strict monitoring conditions as the case moves forward toward a final verdict.