The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Sunil Sundar Gandhi, a senior citizen and private tuition teacher accused in a case registered under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Justice Milind N. Jadhav passed the order on 18 September 2026 in Sunil Sundar Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Bail Application No. 3066 of 2026.
The Court considered the approximately 18-month delay in registration of the FIR, the evidentiary value of an Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution, the statements of two other students, and the material relating to medical and forensic evidence.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred between September and October 2024 during extra classes conducted by the applicant at his private tuition centre in Mahad.
The applicant was accused of locking a Class 10 student inside a classroom, forcibly kissing him and outraging him without his consent.
The FIR was registered on 4 April 2026, and the applicant was arrested on 5 April 2026.
After his earlier bail applications were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge and the POCSO Special Court, the applicant approached the Bombay High Court.
Arguments of the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and highlighted the following circumstances:
- The FIR was registered approximately 18 months after the alleged incident.
- The Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution did not establish the alleged offence.
- The student continued attending the applicant’s tuition classes and secured 96.20% in the Class 10 Board Examination.
- The Medico Legal Examination Report recorded no external injury.
- The FSL Report stated that no potential exhibits were found at the crime scene.
- The applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.
- The investigation had been completed and the chargesheet had been filed.
The defence also argued that the applicant could not influence the victim or witnesses, as the student was residing in Panvel for JEE coaching.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the alleged sexual assault had affected the student’s concentration and academic performance.
The prosecution relied upon an Instagram conversation between the student and his friend and argued that the applicant was an influential person in Mahad who could prejudice the trial or influence witnesses.
The counsel for the first informant also relied upon the POCSO Act’s objective of providing stringent protection to children from sexual offences.
Bombay High Court’s Reasoning
18-Month Delay in FIR Registration
The Court noted that there was an unreasonable delay of more than one and a half years between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR.
It observed that delay in reporting a serious sexual offence may often have little consequence. However, this principle is not absolute.
Where there is a discernible possibility of false implication, the delay must be scrutinised closely.
The Court held that, in the present case, the delay could not be viewed lightly.
Instagram Chat Was Not Sufficient by Itself
The Court examined the Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution.
It found that the particular chat did not explicitly describe the commission of the alleged offence and did not state its time, place or nature.
The Court therefore held that the chat could not be the sole material for denying bail.
Other Evidence and Completion of Investigation
The Court noted that the statements of two other students from the victim’s batch did not reveal anything incongruous or objectionable against the applicant.
It also considered the medical material relied upon by the defence, the applicant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents, and the fact that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed.
The Court concluded that further judicial incarceration did not serve any purpose in the circumstances of the case.
Final Order
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Sunil Sundar Gandhi on furnishing a PR Bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
The Court imposed several conditions, including:
- Reporting to the Investigating Officer once every month for the first six months.
- Cooperating with the trial and attending court proceedings.
- Not leaving the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.
- Not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- Not contacting the victim or witnesses through physical or electronic means.
- Not attempting to contact the victim until completion of the trial and delivery of the verdict.
Violation of the conditions could lead to an application for cancellation of bail.
Important Clarification by the Court
The Bombay High Court expressly clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of bail.
The Court did not decide the merits of the prosecution case, and the trial was to be adjudicated independently in accordance with law.
Grant of bail is not an acquittal.
Key Takeaway
The judgment illustrates that, while considering bail in a POCSO case, the Court may examine the totality of the prima facie material, including delay in registration of the FIR, the nature of the evidence, completion of investigation and the possibility of influencing witnesses.
An FIR delay does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The Court’s decision depends on the circumstances and material available in the particular case.
