IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2710 OF 2024 Sanyog Sanjay Gaikwad …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Vivek Arote a/w Mr. Akshay Dingale for Applicant.

Ms. S.M. Yadav, APP for the State.

Ms. Nilima C. Sarvagod For Respondent No.2.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 8^th January 2026 P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Arote, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State and Ms. Nilima Sarvagod, learned Advocate appointed to represent interest of the Respondent No.2.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.436 of 2024 registered with Lonikalbhor Police Station, Pune City, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 64(2)(m) and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

3. It is the contention of Mr. Arote, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the relationship between the Applicant and the First Informant was consensual. Mr. Arote, learned Counsel submits that there are no antecedents.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State and Ms. Nilima Sarvagod, learned Advocate representing interest of Respondent No.2 strongly oppose granting anticipatory bail to the Applicant. Both of them submit that by representing that the Applicant would marry the Respondent No.2, the Applicant established sexual relationship with the Respondent No.2. Both of them submitted that the Anticipatory Bail Application be rejected.

5. A learned Single by Order dated 7^th October 2024 has granted interim protection. The said Order reads as under :

“1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State.

2. Since offences under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ("POCSO Act") are also registered against the Applicant, notice will have to be issued to Respondent No.2 who is informant/victim in the present case.

3. But, the learned Counsel for the Applicant is pressing for interim relief in the meanwhile. It is submitted that in the present case the informant and the Applicant were in a consensual relationship and when the relationship did not finally workout, the informant turned around to cause the First Information Report to be registered. It is submitted that while the Applicant was aged 19 years and 10 months on the date of registration of the First Information Report that is 6^th September 2024, deliberately a reference was made to an incident of 8^th October 2022, so that the informant could claim that she was a minor when the first incident of alleged sexual abuse took place, in order to invoke provisions of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the Applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and this Court may consider granting interim relief.

4. On the other hand learned APP submits that the statement leading to registration of the First Information Report clearly makes out the ingredients of the offences registered against the Applicant, it is submitted that investigation is still under way and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offences, this Court may not show indulgence to the Applicant.

6. In the present case the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with First Information Report No. 0436 of 2024 dated 6^th September 2024 registered at police station Loni Kalbhor, District Pune, for offence under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1) (w)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Section 64 (2) (m) and Section 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 ("BNS").

7. There is no doubt about the fact that serious offences are registered against the Applicant in the present case but, that i