Bombay High Court

SHADAB RASID TAMBOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that the victim’s later statements, indicating consensual relationship and marriage, constitute a material change in circumstances and justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench considered two anticipatory bail applications filed by Ayaj Ajim Pathan and Shadab Rasid Tamboli in connection with Crime No. 283/2024, which involved offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complainant, a 19‑year‑old girl, alleged abduction, forced marriage and sexual exploitation, but later statements recorded by police indicated that the relationship and marriage were consensual and that she left of her own volition. The applicants argued that these later statements constituted a material change in circumstances warranting bail, while the State contended that the seriousness of the offences precluded pre‑arrest bail. The Court examined the victim’s statements, noted that they had not been previously placed before it, and held that they created a genuine change in circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to both applicants with specific conditions, directing them to cooperate with the investigation and attend trial dates.

Issues considered

Whether the later police‑recorded statements of the victim amount to a material change in circumstances justifying anticipatory bail.
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act given the seriousness of the allegations.
Whether the applicant's prior bail rejections affect the consideration of the current applications.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 137(2), 351(2), 49, 64(2), 74, 75, 78 r/w 3(5), 87
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
sexual offences
child protection
change in circumstances
bail conditions
evidentiary statements

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:45362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

915 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 526 OF 2026

AYAJ AJIM PATHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2292 OF 2025

SHADAB RASID TAMBOLI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Mr. Sagar P. Mahale h/f Mr. Mazhar A. Jahagirdar Shaikh, Advocate for
Applicant
Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State
Ms. Sayli Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed) in ABA No.
526/2026
Mr. A. A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in ABA No. 2292/2025

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 283/2024,

registered with Ghargaon Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences

punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 123, 64(2), 351(2), 49, 74, 75, 78 r/w

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 8 & 12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

2. The First Information Report indicates that the informant, a 19-year-old

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 1 of 6
girl, has made allegations against the Applicants. She states that in January

2020, she became acquainted with Applicant Shadab, and they were in a

relationship. She further states that the said fact was known to her parents

and, therefore, her mother and cousin brother advised Shadab in that regard,

after which they stopped meeting each other. However, he continued to call

and message her.

3. Thereafter, allegations have been made with regard to an incident in

2021, when the said Shadab took photographs with her and threatened to

make the said photographs viral. She further alleges that in 2023, she refused

to continue her relationship with Shadab. She claims that, despite disclosing

her intention to him, the co-accused prevailed upon her and asked her not to

break the relationship with him. She further alleges that she was abducted on

07.07.2024 and thereafter taken to Mumbai. She also claims that she was

administered some substance and that, against her will, her marriage was

performed with Shadab.

4. On the basis of these allegations, the Applicants apprehend arrest.

5. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that, insofar as Shadab is

concerned, this is his first bail application before this Court. Though the

application filed by Applicant Ayaj is his third bail application, there has been

a change in circumstances, inasmuch as the statement of the victim recorded

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 2 of 6
by the Police when she was brought to the S.P. Office was not considered by

this Court.

6. On merits, it is submitted that if the said statement recorded by the

Police when the victim was brought to the S.P. Office is taken into

consideration, there is no reason to believe the allegation made in the First

Information Report that the Applicants abducted the victim and that she was

forced to perform marriage with Applicant Shadab. It is submitted that, since

the charge-sheet has now been filed, custodial interrogation of the Applicants

is not necessary.

6. Learned APP and learned Advocates for the Informant opposed the

grant of any relief to the Applicants. It is their contention that, insofar as

Applicant Ayaj is concerned, this is his third bail application and, since his

previous bail application was rejected after filing of the charge-sheet, there is

no change in circumstances warranting entertainment of the fresh application.

7. As regards the merits of the case, it is submitted that the victim is 19

years of age and, considering her tender age, it is possible that she was unable

to disclose the true facts at the first instance when she was brought to the S.P.

Office. It is their contention that subsequently she gathered courage and

disclosed the correct facts in the First Information Report, which, according to

them, are sufficient to show the complicity of the Applicants in the crime in

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 3 of 6
question. It is their contention that, having regard to the nature and

seriousness of the offence, this is not a case in which pre-arrest bail can be

granted.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that the application of Ayaj was rejected

by this Court after filing of the charge-sheet. However, there is nothing on

record to indicate that the statements of the victim recorded in the missing

complaint were produced before this Court for its consideration. If the said

statements were not placed before this Court earlier and are now sought to be

placed on record, the same amounts to a change in circumstances. This Court,

therefore, finds no hesitation in entertaining the application of Applicant Ayaj.

9. The statements recorded during the inquiry into the missing complaint

indicate that the victim admits her relationship with accused Shadab. The

statements further show that the said relationship was without any force and

that she had left the house on her own. Even with regard to the marriage, the

statement indicates that she had, on her own, performed the marriage with

accused Shadab. Apart from this, the statement of Dattu Thorat, uncle of the

victim, also indicates that the victim told him that she had committed a

mistake and that she wanted to go along with them. This statement supports

the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicants with regard to the

possibility of the First Information Report having been lodged by the victim at

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 4 of 6
the instance of her family members.

10. In the light of these facts, and more particularly, the statement of the

victim recorded by the Police at the first instance, and also in view of the fact

that the charge-sheet has now been filed upon conclusion of the investigation,

this Court finds no justification to reject the applications of the Applicants.

Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2292 of 2025 is allowed
in terms of interim order dated 24.12.2025.

(ii) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 526 of 2026 is allowed
in following terms:
(a) In the event of arrest of Applicant -Ayaj Ajim
Pathan in connection with crime no. 283/2024,
registered with Ghargaon Police Atation, District
Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 87, 123, 64(2), 351(2), 49, 74, 75, 78 r/w 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 8 &
12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (POCSO), he shall be released on bail on
furnishing PR Bond of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen
thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount.

(b) He shall not contact the victim/witnesses directly
or indirectly.

(d) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation, if any.

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 5 of 6
(iii) Both Applicants are directed to attend the trial on each
date of hearing.

11. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.

12. The fees of the appointed counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

915 ABA 526.2026.odt 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…