Bombay High Court observes that the accused, aged just 18 years and 9 months at the time of offence, “could not realize the serious consequences” of his actions; Advocate Harekrishna Mishra successfully argued for the applicant
MUMBAI, June 10, 2026 – In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court today granted bail to a young man accused of kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl, observing that the duo was in a “love relationship” and that the accused’s young age and prolonged incarceration of three and a half years warranted his release.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak of the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed the bail application of Jay Anil Sawant, who had been behind bars since December 2022 in connection with Crime No. 472 of 2022 registered at Aarey Police Station, Mumbai. The applicant was represented by Advocate Harekrishna Mishra, along with Advocate Jyoti S. Gupta, instructed by Advocate Prablin Singh Abrol.
The Case Against the Applicant
The applicant faced serious charges including aggravated rape under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – which deals with rape of a woman under 12 years of age – along with Sections 363 (kidnapping), 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty), and 354-A (sexual harassment) of the IPC. Additionally, he was charged under Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Sections 66(C) and 66(E) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
The case was registered on December 9, 2022, based on a complaint filed by the mother of the 13-year-old victim. According to the prosecution, the applicant and the victim first came into contact through the social media platform Instagram. Their friendship gradually developed, leading to a meeting at Goregaon on December 9, 2022.
Thereafter, following instructions sent by the applicant via Instagram messages, the victim went to Goregaon station, from where the two traveled to Wakad, Pune. It was on December 11, 2022, that the applicant allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with the minor victim.
Strong Arguments by Defence Counsel
Advocate Harekrishna Mishra, appearing for the applicant, persuasively argued before the Bombay High Court that the applicant and the victim had come in contact through social media and gradually developed a friendship. He emphasized the young age of his client and the consensual nature of the relationship, laying the groundwork for the court’s eventual finding of a “love relationship” between the two.
Prosecution’s Strong Opposition
The State’s prosecution, led by learned APP Mr. S.V. Walve, along with the court-appointed counsel for the victim, Ms. Sanskriti Yagnik, vehemently opposed the bail application. They argued that the material on record clearly indicated that the applicant had induced the minor victim to elope with him. They further submitted that after taking her to his residence in Wakad, he committed forcible sexual intercourse, and the medical report supported the victim’s version of events.
The prosecution maintained that a prima facie case was established against the applicant for the alleged serious offences, which carry stringent punishments under the POCSO Act.
Bombay High Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail
While acknowledging that there exists a prima facie case against the applicant, Justice Chandak took into consideration several mitigating factors that tilted the balance in favor of granting bail.
The Bombay High Court placed significant emphasis on the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim. “From the record, prima facie it appears that the victim and the Applicant were in love relationship,” the court observed.
This observation was bolstered by the statement of the applicant’s mother, who told the court that when she inquired with both the victim and the applicant about their relationship, they allegedly threatened to commit suicide – an indication, the court noted, of the emotional intensity of their relationship.
The bench also took judicial notice of the applicant’s socioeconomic background. “The Applicant belongs to poor strata of the Society. His father has been working in a private company,” the order stated.
Most crucially, the court highlighted the applicant’s age at the time of the offence. The accused was merely 18 years and 9 months old – barely a few months into legal adulthood. “From the material on record, it appears that, the Applicant could not realized the serious consequences of this offence due to young age,” Justice Chandak observed.
The court further noted that the applicant has been behind bars for the last 3 years and 6 months – since December 2022. “His mental and physical well-being must be” considered, the order stated, leaving the sentence incomplete but implying the necessity of protecting the young accused’s well-being through release.
Conditions Imposed for Bail
Granting the application, Justice Chandak ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
However, the Bombay High Court imposed several stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s availability for trial and to prevent any interference with the judicial process:
- The applicant must mark his attendance at Aarey Police Station, Mumbai, on the 1st day of each calendar month between 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m., until the conclusion of the trial.
- He shall regularly attend proceedings before the jurisdictional court unless specifically exempted in writing.
- He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or directly or indirectly influence prosecution witnesses.
- Upon release, he must furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and keep the officer updated of any changes.
Cautionary Note to Trial Court
In a crucial clarification, the Bombay High Court emphasized that its observations were strictly confined to determining the applicant’s entitlement to bail. “By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination to the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the Applicant,” the order read.
The trial court has been directed not to be influenced by any of the observations made in this bail order while adjudicating the guilt of the accused.
Legal Analysis
The case presents a complex intersection of juvenile justice principles and the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, which generally disfavors bail in cases of sexual offences against children. The court’s decision to grant bail despite a prima facie case being established suggests a balancing of the accused’s young age, his prolonged pre-trial detention of 42 months, and the peculiar circumstances of an alleged consensual relationship between two individuals – the victim being 13 and the accused just 18.
Legal experts note that while the POCSO Act is gender-neutral and designed to protect children from sexual abuse, courts have sometimes taken a lenient view in cases involving adolescents in close age proximity, particularly when there is evidence of a romantic relationship. However, the law remains clear that consent is immaterial when the victim is below 18 years of age under the POCSO Act.
The matter now awaits trial before the jurisdictional court, where the applicant will face prosecution for offences that carry severe penalties, including up to 20 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Counsel Appeared in the Matter
The applicant was represented by a team of lawyers led by Advocate Harekrishna Mishra, along with Advocate Jyoti S. Gupta, instructed by Advocate Prablin Singh Abrol.
The State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1) was represented by Mr. S.V. Walve, learned APP (Additional Public Prosecutor).
The victim (Respondent No. 2) was represented by court-appointed counsel Ms. Sanskriti Yagnik.
Also present during the proceedings was PSI Appa Kamble from Aarey Police Station, Mumbai.
Read more:
