Mumbai, January 16, 2024 – In a case that has raised significant concerns regarding child safety, a Mumbai court has denied bail to Sanika Mahadev Waghmare, a college student accused of kidnapping and drugging a three-year-old child with the intent to sell him for a large sum of money. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne of Court Room No. 30, Greater Bombay, rejected the bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.
Case Background
Sanika Waghmare, a student at K.J. Somaiya College, was arrested on November 20, 2023, after being accused of abducting a three-year-old boy named Vikas from a neighborhood near her residence in Sewree, Mumbai. The incident was reported by Vikas’s mother, Smt. Suman Chourasiya, who noticed her son was missing while he was playing outside with his older brother. When questioned, a neighbor reportedly informed her that she saw Vikas with Waghmare, who was forcefully taking him away.
Despite attempts to reach Waghmare via phone, she denied having the child and claimed she was at college. Shortly thereafter, the parents and the police were informed that a person named Shivaji Kamble, along with another individual named Shakil Shaikh, had brought Vikas to the police station, explaining that Waghmare had handed the child over to them.
The Alleged Plot and Investigative Findings
Upon being questioned by the police, Waghmare allegedly revealed a disturbing plan. She claimed that she was approached by an acquaintance, Pawan Pokharkar, who promised her ₹2 lakh if she could bring him a young child, specifically around 10 years old. According to the prosecution, Waghmare admitted to luring Vikas, who was then taken to Kalyan, a locality in Mumbai.
Investigations revealed that Waghmare allegedly administered Nitrazepam, a powerful sedative, to Vikas to ensure he remained subdued during the kidnapping. The child was then reportedly transported in a taxi, whose driver later provided a statement to the police supporting these events.
The police subsequently arrested additional suspects, including Pawan Pokharkar, and identified two other accomplices, Sarthak and Swapnil Bombale. Investigators claim that Swapnil intended to facilitate the sale of the child to a buyer named Nitin Bibwe, who had offered a large sum of money—₹6 lakh—for a child fitting Vikas’s age. Evidence from mobile phone conversations and financial transactions has been recovered, allegedly linking the accused to a wider conspiracy involving the child’s sale.
Court’s Rationale for Denying Bail
During the court proceedings, Waghmare’s counsel, Advocate Ritu Jambhavdekar, argued that her client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. They asserted that Waghmare was a responsible student, cooperated fully with authorities, and had no prior criminal record. Furthermore, they contended that as a local resident with a permanent address, she posed no flight risk and had no reason to remain in custody during the trial.
However, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manjushree Golhar, strongly opposed bail. They argued that releasing Waghmare could compromise the investigation, potentially leading to the intimidation of witnesses and tampering with evidence. They emphasized the severity of the charges, noting that Waghmare was allegedly involved in a premeditated crime with multiple co-conspirators and that evidence pointed to her direct role in the abduction, drugging, and intended sale of the child.
Judge Sasne, in his ruling, highlighted several key factors in the decision:
- Seriousness of the Offense: The charges involve not only kidnapping but also the administration of a sedative to a minor. Judge Sasne noted the high-risk nature of such offenses and their profound societal impact, particularly concerning the safety of children.
- Ongoing Investigation: The judge emphasized that the investigation remains active, with evidence suggesting a well-organized network involving multiple suspects. Given the gravity of the alleged crime, including the involvement of other accused who are still under investigation, releasing Waghmare on bail could hinder the search for additional evidence and co-conspirators.
- Potential Risk to Witnesses and Evidence: The prosecution presented concerns that Waghmare’s release could lead to witness intimidation or interference with the collection of evidence, especially given the interconnected nature of the suspects.
Legal and Social Implications
This case underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement in handling serious criminal activities involving minors and drugs. With the court denying bail, it reflects the judiciary’s commitment to a cautious approach in cases where public safety is at risk. The alleged involvement of young adults in such crimes raises pressing questions about societal influences and the need for vigilance in protecting children from similar threats.
Cyber forensic evidence from mobile chats and recorded financial exchanges, including the presence of the drug Nitrazepam, has emerged as pivotal to the prosecution’s case. Legal experts highlight this case as an example of the critical role of digital evidence in modern-day crime investigations and emphasize the importance of rigorous law enforcement to deter future offenses.
Community and Parental Concerns
This case has heightened awareness among local communities and parents regarding child safety, particularly in urban areas where children are often left to play unsupervised. Authorities have advised parents to remain vigilant and to educate their children on stranger danger and personal safety measures.
Conclusion
As of now, Waghmare will remain in judicial custody while the investigation continues. This case is expected to proceed with significant scrutiny, as it involves issues of child protection, cyber evidence, and organized crime. The denial of bail reaffirms the court’s stance on the gravity of crimes involving children and the judicial system’s role in ensuring the thorough investigation of such cases before allowing the accused any reprieve.
The case is set to move forward with additional hearings, where further evidence will be presented, and the court will decide on subsequent proceedings, potentially leading to a trial.
