Bombay High Court

SHRISHAIL KALLAPPA TELIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act and that custodial interrogation is not warranted, thereby granting pre‑arrest bail.

Summary

The appellant, Shrishail Kallappa Teli, was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a married Scheduled Caste woman on the false pretext of marriage. The victim, a 30‑year‑old married woman, claimed the appellant made caste‑based remarks and promised marriage, while the appellant contended the relationship was consensual and the allegations were false. The court examined the Supreme Court’s observations in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that a married woman is ineligible for a second marriage and that the alleged promise of marriage could not be legally enforceable. Finding no prima facie material to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act or the need for custodial interrogation, the court granted pre‑arrest bail with conditions and disposed of the appeal.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting pre‑arrest bail in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act involving alleged sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage.
Whether custodial interrogation of the appellant is warranted.
Whether the appellant's alleged caste‑based remarks constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the alleged acts amount to an offence given the victim's marital status and the legal prohibition on bigamous unions.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 69, 78(2)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 5(i)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Special Marriage Act, 1954 — s. 4(i)

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
SC/ST (Atrocities) Act
consensual relationship
false promise of marriage
custodial interrogation
caste remarks
marital status
rape
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CR. APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2026

Shri Shrishail Kallappa Teli
Age – 29 yrs., Occ. Presently Nil,
R/o. Teli Galli, Mahagaon,
Tal. Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur … Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur
3. The Victim in CR No. 277/2026
registered with Gadhinglaj Police Station,
… Respondent
Dist. Kolhapur.

-----
 Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant.
 Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
 Mr. Vishal V. Mane i/b. Ms. Sakshi M. Lokare, Ms. Asmita N. Chougale,
Ms. Nikita J. Salunkhe & Ms. Snehal R. Kamble for the Respondent
No.3.
 Officer : PSI Mr. D.B. Kapse, Gadhinglaj Police Station, present.
-------

Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

Date : 19th August 2026.

Oral Judgment :

1. Heard, Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Vishal

Mane, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 3-victim and Mr. S. H.

osk 1 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-State.

2. By this Appeal under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SCST Act”), the

Appellant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0277 of

2026, dated 05/06/2026, registered with Gadhinglaj Police Station, District

Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 78(2), 115(2),

351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act.

3. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, states that there

are four (4) accused in Crime No. 0277 of 2026. The Appellant is accused No.

1, while accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Appellant's family members.

4. The prosecution case is that the Respondent No.3-victim, belonging to

the Scheduled Caste, developed a friendship with the Appellant in October

2025. The Respondent No.3 filed the F.I.R., contending that the Appellant

had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage.

5. Mr Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that

Respondent No. 3 is a 30-year-old married woman who became acquainted

with the Appellant and developed a relationship with the Appellant. He

submits that the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 visited various places and

had consensual physical relations. He submits that the allegations made by

osk 2 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

Respondent No. 3 against the Appellant in Crime No. 0277 of 2026 are false

and mala fide.

6. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, further submits

that the allegations that the Appellant made remarks about the caste of the

Respondent No. 3 are false, vague and do not constitute any offence.

7. Mr. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that

the case of the prosecution is that the Appellant had sexual intercourse with

the Respondent No.3, on the pretext of marriage and therefore the offence is

made out. He submits that custodial interrogation of the Appellant is needed

to subject the Appellant to medical examination.

8. Mr. Vishal Mane, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3-victim,

submits that the Appellant has made a caste-based remark against the

Respondent No.3. He submits that the Appellant was fully aware that the

Respondent No.3 was married at the time of establishing relationship with

the Respondent No.3 . He submits that there was an understanding between

the Respondent No.3 and the Appellant that the Respondent No.3 would first

secure a divorce from her husband and thereafter marry the Appellant. He

submits that the Respondent No.3 has sufficient material to show that the

Appellant wanted to marry the Respondent No.3.

9. Perused the records.

osk 3 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

10. The Respondent No. 3, a 30-year-old married woman (married on 28 th

February 2016) with a minor child from that marriage, is a fact not in

dispute.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna

v/s. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1, in paragraph Nos.19 and 20, has

made the following observations :-

“19. Upon a careful consideration of the record in the present case,
we are unable to discern any material that would warrant the
invocation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present
case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual
relationship turning acrimonious. Upon perusal of the records of the
case, it is evident that the complainant-respondent No. 3 is a married
lady with a ten years old child. The said marriage was solemnized on
02.06.2011 and although divorce proceedings are currently pending
adjudication between her and her husband, by no stretch of
imagination can it be held that the complainant respondent No. 3 was
eligible for being married with the accused/appellant on 18.09.2022,
the date on which the first of the multiple instances of acts of rape on
the false pretext of marriage has been committed by the accused-
appellant are alleged. Therefore, even for the sake of argument, if the
contention of the respondent No. 1-State and the complainant-
respondent No. 3 is accepted that there indeed was a false promise of
marriage based on which the accused-appellant indulged in sexual
activities, such a promise would not be legally enforceable or even
capable of being acted upon as the victim herself was not eligible for
marriage, neither on the date of the first alleged act of offence i.e.
18.09.2022 nor on any subsequent dates wherein the parties indulged
in the sexual activities, till the point of the date of registration of FIR
i.e. 06.02.2025. The said embargo arises from sub-clause (i) of
Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which categorically
prohibits marriage between two individuals if either of them have a
living spouse. The said position of law has been reiterated under sub
clause (i) of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

1 Criminal Appeal ___ of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4452 of 2025, dated
05/02/2026

osk 4 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

20. In other words, the law prohibits bigamous unions and
therefore disallows parties from entering into a second marriage
during the subsistence of their first marriage. It is, therefore, difficult
to accept the view that the complainant-respondent No. 3, who herself
is an advocate, was oblivious to the said settled position of law and
hence was duped and induced by the accused/appellant into having
sexual relations with him on different occasions on the pretext of
marriage especially when both the parties were cognizant of the
marital status of the complainant/Respondent No. 3.”

12. Respondent No. 3, being married, was not eligible to marry the

Appellant on the date of the alleged incident of rape, purportedly committed

by the Appellant under the false pretext of marriage. The fact that

Respondent No. 3 was well aware of her own impediment to marriage cannot

be used to her advantage, namely, that the Appellant had promised her

marriage and believing the same, she decided to maintain sexual relations

with the Appellant. There is no material to suggest that the Appellant’s

intention was initially to deceive Respondent No.3 and to have a physical

relationship.

13. The submissions of Mr. Vishal Mane, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No. 3, as recorded in paragraph No. 9 hereinabove and the

allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie indicate that a consensual relationship

developed between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3, later

deteriorated. The ingredients of the offence thus charged against the

Appellant are prima facie not made out.

osk 5 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

14. The allegations against the Appellant for committing the offence under

the SCST Act are that the Appellant addressed Respondent No.3 by her caste.

Prima facie, there is no material on record to show that the Appellant

referred to Respondent No.3's caste to humiliate her. Be that as it may, this is

a matter for consideration at the stage of trial.

15. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the custodial interrogation of

the Appellant is not warranted. This is a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to

the Appellant on the following conditions:

(a) In the event of the arrest of the Appellant in the Crime No. 0277

of 2026, dated 05/06/2026, registered with Gadhinglaj Police

Station, District Kolhapur, the Appellant shall be released on bail

upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only), with one or two local sureties in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer,

Gadhinglaj Police Station, District Kolhapur.

(b) The Appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Gadhinglaj Police Station, District Kolhapur, on 21/08/2026 at

10.00 a.m. for his medical examination.

Gadhinglaj Police Station, District Kolhapur as and when

osk 6 of 7
912- APEAL-168-2026 (CR).docx

required by the Investigating Officer.

(d) The Appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to the Respondent No. 3-victim or

to any person/s acquainted with the facts of the case to

dissuade such person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or

any police officer.

(e) The Appellant shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.

(f) The Appellant shall provide the Investigation Officer with his

residential address along with proof, his contact numbers and

must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this

information from time to time.

(g) The Appellant shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in

the process of investigation in Crime No. 0277 of 2026.

16. The Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2026 is disposed off.

[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
OMKAR SHIVAHAR
SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.08.20
10:24:42 +0530

osk 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…