Bombay High Court
ANIKET RAJENDRA KUSKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N R BORKAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant with specified conditions.
Summary
Aniket R. Kuskar was convicted in a case involving offences under the IPC (sections 323, 354(B), 376(2)(N), 420, 504, 506) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was alleged to have deceived a woman about marrying her while already married, leading to sexual intercourse and extortion. The Additional Sessions Judge denied his bail application after he had been in custody for about two and a half years, with the trial still at the charge‑framing stage. On appeal, the High Court noted that the victim was aware of the appellant’s marital status and that the prolonged pre‑trial detention warranted relief. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted bail on conditions including a bond, monthly police reporting, non‑tampering with evidence, and no contact with the victim.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious offences including rape, assault, and offences under the SC/ST Act after prolonged pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the victim's knowledge of the appellant's marital status affects the assessment of bail.
- Whether the stage of trial (charge framing) and length of custody justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 354(B), 376(2)(N), 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(ii)(v), 3(ii)(w)(i)(ii)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- IPC
- SC/ST Act
- sexual assault
- extortion
- marriage fraud
- criminal procedure
Judgment
903-apeal-38-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 OF 2026
Aniket R. Kuskar …Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr.Mithilesh Mishra a/w. Adv. Namasvi Bhanushali, Adv. Hrituraj
Singh for the Appellant.
Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Dilip H. Shukla for Respondent No.2.
PSI Jagdish More, Andheri Police Station is present.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 02.07.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 9 th December
2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division,
Dindoshi, Mumbai below Exhibit-10 in Special Case No.71 of 2024.
2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant for bail
who is in custody in C.R. No.581 of 2023 registered at Andheri
Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 354(B), 376(2)(N), 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and Sections 3(ii)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant,
who was already married, by suppressing the said fact, subjected
the victim to the sexual intercourse on the pretext that he would
marry her.
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3
903-apeal-38-26.odt
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/victim.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since
inception the victim was aware about the marital status of the
appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was going to take
divorce from his wife and the victim was aware about the said
fact. It is submitted that they even stayed together for some
period. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is in jail for about two and half years and the trial is still
at the stage of framing of charge.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and
the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim submit that the
appellant is involved in serious crime. It is submitted that the
appellant sexually exploited the victim on the false promise of
marriage even though he was already married. It is submitted that
the appellant extorted money from the victim. It is thus submitted
that the appellant may not be released on bail.
7. I have perused the statement of the victim. Prima facie,
there appears to be substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant. The appellant is in jail for about two and
half years and the trial is still at the stage of framing of charge.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to release the appellant on bail on certain conditions.
Hence, the following order is passed.
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3
903-apeal-38-26.odt
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 9th December 2024 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi,
Mumbai is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellant be released on bail in C.R. No. 581 of
2023 registered at Andheri Police Station, Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 376(2)(N),
420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections
3(ii)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall attend the concerned police station
once in a month, i.e., on first Saturday between 11.00 am to
2.00 pm till conclusion of trial.
(v) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
(vi) The appellant shall not contact the victim.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3
Checking your session…