Bombay High Court

SHUBHAM SANTOSH JAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

Bail was granted as the FIR did not prima facie establish the alleged offences, and the possibility of false implication was not ruled out.

Summary

Shubham Santosh Jawane appealed for bail in a criminal case (C.R. No. 212/2026) alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including false promise of marriage and forcible sexual relations. The FIR alleged that the appellant had promised marriage to the informant, engaged in forced sexual intercourse, and later married another woman. The appellant contended that the FIR did not disclose any rape or a false promise leading to sexual relations and that the possibility of false implication existed. The respondents argued that the FIR specifically alleged the false promise and physical relationship. The Court held that the FIR, on a prima facie basis, did not establish a physical relationship arising from a false promise of marriage and that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out, thereby granting bail. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was released on bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses sufficient grounds to deny bail to the appellant under the alleged offences.
Whether the allegation of false promise of marriage coupled with alleged forced sexual relations is substantiated on a prima facie basis.
Whether the possibility of false implication warrants granting bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 3(4), 3(5), 351(4), 5, 69
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2), 3(v)

Subjects

bail
false promise of marriage
sexual assault
SC/ST Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
prima facie
false implication

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34133
949-APEAL-470-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2026

Shubham Santosh Jawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. G. S. Shete, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Ms. Neha Udawant, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
...

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : AUGUST 06, 2026

P. C. :

1. Appellant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 212/2026

registered with Police Station Chikalthana, District Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(4), 3(4),

5, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)

(w)(ii), 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The first information report lodged by the informant indicates

that about friendship between informant and Appellant since 2020.

Informant claims that Appellant had proposed her for marriage, which she

refused. It is claimed that even thereafter the Appellant was assuring her of

marriage. There is allegation in the FIR with regard to she being subjected

to forcible sexual relations. There are other allegations in the report

Page 1 of 3
949-APEAL-470-2026.odt

indicating that after the engagement of the present Appellant with another

girl, she confronted him about the same and upon it, he agreed to marry her.

Finally, he performed marriage with another girl.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that FIR does not

disclose any offence much less offence of rape. It is his submission that since

first informant claims that relations between them forcible in nature,

question of it being established by way of false promise of marriage does not

arise. It is his submission that since Appellant has performed marriage with

another girl, the possibility of false implication is not ruled out.

4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed grant

of any relief to Appellant for the reason that there are specific allegations

against Appellant in the FIR of he agreeing to marry with Informant and

established physical relation with her and ultimately marrying to someone

else.

5. Prima facie perusal of the FIR does not indicate even a single

statement showing that on false promise of marriage Appellant has

established physical relations with informant. The allegations of physical

intercourse and false promise of marriage even otherwise cannot go

together. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned Counsel for

the Appellant that since the Appellant has married to another person, the

possibility of present report being lodged against him is not ruled out.

Page 2 of 3
949-APEAL-470-2026.odt

6. In view of above, Appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the

order:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) Appellant in connection with C.R. No. 212/2026 registered
with Police Station Chikalthana, District Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 69,
351(4), 3(4), 5, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2), 3(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, shall be released on bail on furnishing
PB of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one
surety in the like amount.

(iii) He shall attend the trial before Trial Court on each date of
hearing.

(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.

7. Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 3 is quantified @

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by High Court Legal Services

Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

8. The observations made herein above by this Court are prima

facie in nature. Trial Court shall not get influced by the same.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…