IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2025
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
Satish Jagdish Purohit …Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

RELAVANT DETAILS:
1. C.R. No. 762 of 2024 (@Pg.no. 41, FIR)

2. Registration of Zero FIR/01/2024 on 27/09/2024 at 23:12 hrs. (Written Info)

FIR details Physical FIR on 28/09/2024 at 04:13 hrs.

3. Name of the Police L.T. Marg Police Station

Station

4. Sections invoked 354, 376(2)(n), 377 and 509 IPC a/w 4, 6, 8, 12 of POCSO Act

5. Complainant Prachi Bharat Mehta (Victim’s Counsellor)

Details

6. Period of Offence 01/01/2022 – 31/12/2023

7. Victim’s Birth 23/09/2008 (Birth [email protected])

Date 16 yrs at the time of filing of FIR
About 14-15 at the time of offence

8. Accused Person(s) Accused No.1

Details Tarun Rajpurohit (Teacher at Shadow Learning)
As per Chargesheet Allegation: Between 2022–December 2023, he hugged the
victim, kissed her cheeks in class, and discussed her personal life.

Accused No.2
Gautam Rajpurohit (A1’s brother)
Allegation: Showed her adult-rated movies, touched her thigh,
and exploited her trust.

Accused No.3 (Present Applicant)

Satish Jagdish Rajpurohit @ Satya Rajpurohit @
Satyanarayan Rajpurohit (A1’s elder brother)
Allegation: Between July 2023–December 2023, he forcibly
performed oral sex, kissed her body, and sexually assaulted her
twice.

APPLICANTS CASE DETAILS:

9. Arrest Details 29/09/2024 at 13:50 hrs.

10. Custody Details 30/09/2024, Order to be Remanded in PCR

 05/10/2024, JCR (present)

11. Date of Filing of 22/11/2024 ([email protected], Exh.A)

Chargesheet

12. Trial Court Details Spl. Case. 2319 of 2024

(Special Court for POCSO at Greater Bombay)

13. Bail Application Sessions Court, Greater Bombay Rejected Twice vide:
Details 1. BA/850/2024 rejected on 18/11/2024
2. Exh.4 in SC/2319/2024 Rejected on 20/12/2024
(@pg.296, Exh.B)
PLEASE NOTE: Brothers of the Applicant i.e., the co-accused persons granted Bail on
18/10/2024

STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES:

Sr. Date Particulars Role Page no.
no.

1 27/09/2024 Prachi Bharat Mehta First Informant/ 48-50

2 28/09/2024 Victim N/A 54-55

3 28/09/2024 Shilpa Rajesh Jain Victim’s Mother 78-80

03/11/2024 Submitted Evidence

4 01/10/2024 Rhea Vinod Chaursia Manager of Tuition/Teacher 82-83

4 01/10/2024 Saumin Mukesh Parekh Neighbour of Accused 84

5 21/11/2024 Ramrichpal Rameshvardas Rentee of Tuition Premises 87

Agarwal

6 21/11/2024 Vishal Bhanu Prajapati Employed teacher in tuition/ 88

Ex-student of accused

Vishal (6th witness), aged 19 was first a student at the Accused’s Tuition Classes, he was hired as
a teacher by the accused later on so he could earn his livelihood. He has admitted that he used to
stay with the Applicant’s family. At the end of the trip to Manali on 29/09/2024 (day of arrest of
Applicant), he exchanged phones with the Applicant.

SIEZED ARTICLES DETAILS:

Sr Item Property Status
Register no.

1 Realme 8 Company, Grey Coloured Mobile Phone 443/2024 Sent to

1) I.M.E.I. no. 1-863265056978153 Chemical
2) I.M.E.I no. 2-863265056978146 Analyser
SIM Card 1: 8369948527
SIM Card 2: 8433758933
 (Recovered from Gautam Rajpurohit)

2 ColorOS Company Sky Blue Coloured Mobile Phone 444/2024 Sent to

1) I.M.E.I. no. 1-865388076596777 Chemical
2) I.M.E.I. no. 2-865388076596769 Analyser
SIM Card 1: 8828158948
(Recovered from Tarun Rajpurohit)

3 IQ00 Z7 Pro 5G Company Blue Coloured Mobile Phone 447/2024 Sent to

1) I.M.E.I. no. 868942064796257 Chemical
2) I.M.E.I. no. 868942064796240 Analyser
With Jio SIM Card no.9336088708, 8356080215
In the Black Mobile Cover, the same Mobile:
Airtel Company Card no. 8097349984 on it
SIM no. 8991922003, Airtel SIM Card no. 9619024656, on it
SIM no. 8991922001
(Recovered from Satish Rajpurohit)

4 One Cream Coloured Realme company with four cameras 550/2024 Sent to
mobile, old used mobile phone with I.M.E.I no. Chemical
860373062394572 Analyser
(Recovered from Accused’s father)

5 1) Maroon coloured half t-shirt old used with on the front side 547/2024 Sent to
Celsiu written Chemical
2) Old used knicker of Green Colour with Black and White Analyser
embroidery
3) Black Colour Bra with White Colour label with Lady Love
arrow on one side
4) Dark Blue colour track pants with white colour logo on the
front.
(Recovered Victim’s clothes from the Victim’s mother)

6 1) One Blue Colour Full Shirt with black and yellow colour 548/2024 Sent to
checkers and the Yellow label with English writing Chemical
“Mayyan” in the inner side. Analyser
2) One Sky Blue Colour jeans with a white square label on
the back withe Nine-X written in English.
3) One Grey Coloured full underwear
(Recovered accused’s clothes from the accused’s father)

SECTIONS INVOLVED

Section 354 - Indian Penal Code (Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty)
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be
likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, 1 [shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years,
and shall also be liable to fine].

Section 376 - Indian Penal Code (Punishment for rape)

(1)Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which 1 [shall not be less than ten
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine].
(2) Whoever,—
(a)being a police officer, commits rape—
(i)within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house; or
(iii)on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer
subordinate to such police officer; or
(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in
the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or
(c)being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in
the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or being a member of
the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape
in such area; or
(d)being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's
institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(e)being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that
hospital; or
(f)being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority
towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(g)commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h)commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(i)commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
(j)being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman;
or
(k)commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or
(l)while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers
the life of a woman; or
(m) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years,
but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—
(a)"armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the
Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the
paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central
Government or the State Government;
 (b)"hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution
for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring
medical attention or rehabilitation;
(c)"police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under
the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);
(d)"women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a
home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any
other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or
children.
(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may
extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that
person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim:

Section 377 - Indian Penal Code (Unnatural offences)

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or
animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the
offence described in this section.

Section 509 - Indian Penal Code: (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman)
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such
gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, 1
[shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and
also with fine].

Section 4 - POCSO Act (Punishment for penetrative sexual assault)

(1)Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than 2[ten years] but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2)Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of
natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine.
(3)The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to
meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.]
Section 6 - POCSO Act (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault)
(1)Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life
of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
(2)The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim
to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.]

Section 8 - POCSO Act (Punishment for sexual assault)

Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

Section 12 - POCSO Act (Punishment for sexual harassment)

Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2025
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
Satish Jagdish Purohit …Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT NO.2

The present Written Submissions are being filed on behalf of the Respondent no.02 (Victim) in
opposition to the Bail Application filed by the Applicant/Accused Satish Jagdish Purohit. The
Advocate for Respondent no.02 respectfully submits that the present application deserves to be
rejected for the reasons set out herein below:

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. On 11/01/2023, the complainant came to Umeed Child Development Center where she was
working as mentioned above along with the victim girl aged 15 years (DOB 23/09/2008).
Since the girl's parents got divorced and her school changed (name and address of the
school is not known), she was having problems adjusting to her new school, school teachers
and classmates, so she came for counselling. This was informed by the victim’s mother to
the organization. Counselling of the victim girl started from that day through the said
organization. The victim had been coming to the first informant for counselling every week
from January 2023 to May 2023. In May 2023, the victim stopped coming to counselling,
due to her Class IX exams.
2. From 13/02/2024 the victim girl again came to then said institution for counselling. When
she was questioned then, she said that since she was in class IX, she had taken private
tuition at Shadow Learning, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai 02, along with the school.
Still, she was facing difficulties while studying. In this regard, when they contacted the
mother of the victim through her mobile phone, she informed that the daily habits of the
victim girl are like looking at mobile phones till late at night, not paying attention to studies
and also because the 10th exam is important, on her request the girl came for counselling.
Since then, the victim girl was coming to her for counselling. After that, she started
counselling every week.
3. During the counselling, sometimes the victim’s mother also accompanied her and discussed
her studies and stress with her. Also, the first informant used to call the mother of the victim
girl, on her mobile number and through WhatsApp messages, telling her about the
difficulties the victim girl was facing in her studies and the measures to be taken in this
regard.
4. One day (First Informant couldn't remember the date) the mother of the victim told the first
informant over the phone that the victim girl was chatting with co-accused i.e. Gautam
Rajpurohit, a teacher who teaches Shadow Learning, where the victim girl was attending
tuition classes, about private matters at home and asked the first informant during the
counselling to ask the victim girl if she had any problems in the teaching.
5. From that date on 30/03/2024, when the First Informant asked the victim girl whether she
was facing any problem in her tuition, the victim girl told the First Informant that during the
period of September 2023, the teacher named Gautam Rajpurohit was very affectionate with
her and through this, he gained the trust of the victim girl and befriended her. The victim
girl used to tell Gautam about her household affairs as well as her private affairs. She
became close friends with Gautham. Out of that, Gautham had taken the victim girl to watch
a movie twice. When the First Informant asked the name of the movie, the victim girl said
that Gautam first took her to watch the Hollywood movie 'The Nun' and the second time the
Bollywood movie 'Animal'. Both these movies are adult rated. Among them, while watching
the movie Animal, Gautam had touched the thigh of the victim girl, as the victim girl did
not like the said thing, she told Gautam about it.
6. After that, as the counselling was going on, the victim girl told the First Informant that in
the tuition the victim girl was attending, along with Gautam, his younger brother Tarun and
Applicant also taught the students. In the year 2022, when the victim girl was attending
tuition, Tarun was to teach her along with other children, after the tuition time was over,
after all the boys and girls who had come for tuition had gone, Tarun used to stop the victim
girl in the class and then hugged her and kissed her on the cheek, the victim girl told the
First Informant. She had also told the First Informant that the accused no.2 stopped
behaving like this after a few days.
7. After that, from July 2023 to December 2023, the Accused Satyaraj also used to keep her in
the class after all the boys and girls left after the tuition was over. He would also hug her
and kiss her on the lips and all over the body. Also asked her to do blow job (oral sex)
forcefully. The victim girl also said that between November 2023 and December 2023, the
accused called the victim girl early in the morning for tuition and had forced physical
relations with her twice in the class room. The incident mentioned above was reported by
the victim girl to the First Informant. During counselling between 30/03/2024 to May 2024
one by one, the First Informant asked the victim girl to tell her mother about the incident but
she refused to tell her mother as she was very scared about the incident.
8. On 29/07/2024, the First Informant asked the mother of the victim girl, to inform the victim
girl about all the incidents that happened with her as mentioned above and file a complaint
with the police. But the victim’s mother and the victim refused to report the incident to the
police. When the First Informant told them that the First Informant has to report to the
institute, the victim’s mother told the First Informant to do what is to be done but said that
they do not want to file any complaint in this regard and the victim girl also stopped coming
for counselling.
9. From August 2024 onwards, after which the First Informant tried to contact the Victim’s
mother but when she was contacted via mobile, the victim’s mother did not respond in any
way. From that, based on the minor victim’s disclosure, the First Informant filed a
complaint in this regard at Joshi Marg Police Station, a Zero FIR was lodged (@Pg.no. 32
Zero FIR)
10. Since the crime scene of crime falls within the jurisdiction of L.T. Marg Police Station, FIR
was lodged on 28/09/2024 (@pg.41, FIR) the co-accused and accused were charged and
thereafter the co-accused were arrested on 28/09/2024 and their mobile phones were seized.
11. On 29/09/2024, the accused in the present Bail Application was detained outside Sahar
International Airport on a tip-off and his mobile phone was seized.
12. The accused was presented before the Magistrate on 30/09/2024 and subsequently
remanded to Police Custody and thereafter Judicial Custody on 05/10/2024 where he
remains till date.
13. Chargesheet was filed on 22/11/2024 (@pg.14, Exhibit A)
14. The Accused preferred Bail in the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay vide Bail Application
no. 850 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 18/11/2024 and thereafter when the
Chargesheet was filed, the Accused preferred Bail vide Bail Application at Exhibit 4 in
Special Case no. 2319 of 2024 which got rejected on 20/12/2024.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF BAIL

1. Gravity of Offences and Severity of Punishment: The applicant is charged

under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 354 (outraging
modesty), 509 (insulting modesty), and Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act. These
offences involve aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim aged 14–15
years at the time of the crime. Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the minimum
punishment is 20 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment or death. The
heinous nature of the allegations, including forced penetrative sexual assault in a
classroom, calls for custodial safeguards for the victim.

2. Prima Facie Case Supported by Medical and Corroborative Evidence: The

prosecution has established a prima facie case through:
A) Medical Evidence: The victim’s medical report confirms an old healed hymenal
tear at the 3, 5, 9, and 12 o’clock positions, consistent with her allegations of
repeated sexual assault; (@Pg.no.94, Medical Report of Victim)
B) Victim’s Testimony: The minor victim provided a detailed, consistent account
under Section 164 CrPC and during counselling sessions, alleging forced sexual
acts by the applicant between July–December 2023 (@Pg.no.54, FIR: Statement
of Victim). Her statement is further corroborated by her mother, Shilpa Jain, who
confirmed the victim’s trauma and reluctance to report the crime due to fear
(@Pg.no.78, FIR: Statement of Victim’s Mother);
C) Messages sent to the Victim: The mother of the victim under Section 63 of the
Evidence Act, 2023 (@Pg.no.57, Certificate as per Section 63, Evidence Act,
2023) provided screenshots/photographs of the obscene messages sent by the
accused and the co-accused (@Pg.no.202-266, Chargesheet: Messages), the
messages clearly depict the culpable criminal mind and actions of the Accused.
D) Confession: The applicant confessed during interrogation, admitting to his role in
the crime. While confessions to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, the statement strengthens the prosecution’s case when read with
other evidence.

3. Attempt to Evade Justice: The lack of permanent roots of the Applicant in Mumbai
(residing in rented premises) aggravates the risk of evading justice.

4. Risk of Tampering with Evidence: Critical digital evidence is yet to be analyzed,

including Mobile phones seized from the applicant and co-accused, which likely contain
 chats, location data, and other incriminating material and CDR/EDR records of the
applicant’s phone, which could establish his proximity to the victim during the alleged
incidents.

5. Risk of Witness Intimidation: As the applicant operated the tuition centre and wielded
authority over the victim, releasing him risks intimidation of the victim, her family, or
witnesses, including Vishal Bhanu Prajapati (Witness No. 6), who worked under the
applicant and exchanged phones with him

6. Abuse of Position of Trust: The applicant, as the proprietor and teacher at Shadow
Learning, exploited his position of authority to groom and sexually assault the victim over
an extended period. The POCSO Act specifically criminalizes abuse of trust under Section
5(p) of the Act. The role and responsibility of a teacher is to enrich and guide his student
and not to use the position to exploit impressionable young children. The same has been
rightly pointed by The Sessions Court in their Order dated 20/12/2024:
“It is important to consider here that the Victim was a student attending the
tuition class of the present Applicant/Accused and there was a trust
relationship of teacher and student between them. Furthermore, the
Applicant/Accused must be aware about the age of the Victim as she was his
student. Therefore, there is moral responsibility also on the accused to
protect the victim from the said acts.”

7. Parity with Co-Accused Is Inapplicable: While co-accused Gautam and Tarun

Rajpurohit were granted bail on 18/10/2024, their roles were limited to molestation and
showing adult-rated movies. In contrast, the applicant faces charges of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault (Section 6 POCSO) and repeated rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC),
which are far more severe, this was also observed by the Sessions Court in their Order
dated 20/12/2024 (Pg.no. 291 Exhibit B, Para 8) A Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of Nanha S/o Nabban Kha vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993 CRI L.J.
933 in paras-23 and 24 has held as under:-
"23........Thus, the case of an accused has to be examined individually. Simply
because the co-accused has been granted bail cannot be the sole criteria for
granting bail to the main accused. Even at the stage of second or third bail
the court has to examine whether on facts, the case of the applicant before the
Court is distinguishable from other released co-accused and the role played by
the applicant is such which may disentitle him to bail........"
"24............The parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the
stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail
applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier
rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail. Even then the court
has to satisfy itself that on consideration of more materials placed further
developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different
consideration, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on
bail......."

8. Factors for bail: In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, 2010 (14)
SCC 496 while dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court
 to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has
exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to
enumerate the factors:
“9. … among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr., AIR
2015 SC 3703 further held:
“This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court
has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed
with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the
nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor
offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of
heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be
regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the
effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the
judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at
large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and
not in a whimsical manner.”

9. Judicial Precedent and Public Interest: Courts have repeatedly denied bail in POCSO
cases to protect the victim’s dignity and ensure a fair trial. In State of Maharashtra v.
Vijay Jadhav (2023), the Bombay High Court rejected bail for a similar case,
emphasizing that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the
justice system, it was held:
“In a case like the present one, the Court cannot ignore the fact that this incident
had shocked the conscience of the society and there was public outcry. Every case
of rape is a heinous offence. The damage done to the victim far outweighs the
public conscience. A rape victim does not suffer just physical injury, but what is
affected is her mental health and stability in life. Rape tantamounts to a serious
blow to the supreme honour and dignity of woman. It is a violation of human
rights”
The applicant’s release could also expose the victim to further trauma, given her vulnerable
age and the psychological impact of the abuse.

10. Ongoing Investigation and Need for Custodial Interrogation: The investigation remains
incomplete, with pending forensic analysis of seized devices, chemical reports, and
 corroboration of CDR data. Custody is essential to unravel the full extent of the
conspiracy, particularly the role of the applicant’s family in facilitating the crime. The
Sessions Court rightly rejected both bail applications (on 18/11/2024 and 20/12/2024
respectively), showing the gravity of the case and the need for judicial restraint.

Advocate of the Respondent no. 2