SANTOSH HANUMANT DHAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                        -1-
                                                            criappeal638.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                924 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2026

Santosh Hanumant Dhage                                 ….Appellant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another                     …..Respondents

Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Appellant
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State.
Mr. L. K. Pradhan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Ms. Smita Kasture, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2.


                                    CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                    DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.

529/2026       registered    with   Shrigonda      Police     Station,   District

Ahilyanagar,     for   the   offences    punishable    under      Sections   64,

115(2),351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)

(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.



2.    First Information Report indicates that the incident had

occurred on 03.05.2026 at about 4.30 pm, when the present

Appellant    forcibly       committed     sexual    intercourse      with    the
                                      -2-
                                                       criappeal638.26.odt

informant/victim. He also threatened her to kill her husband and

children if she does not withdraw the previously instituted case by

her against him.



3.      Learned Counsel for Appellant has drawn attention of the

Court to the earlier First Information Report in Crime No. 699/2025

and order passed by the Special Court granting pre-arrest bail to the

Appellant. He referred to the observations by the Special Court in

paragraph No. 10 of the order.         It is his submission that having

regard to the said fact and also in view of the allegations in the First

Information Report, which according to him, are not supported by

medical evidence, this is a fit case for enlargement of Appellant on

bail.



4.      Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed

grant of any relief to the Appellant. It is their contention that victim

is the member of Scheduled Caste community and having regard to

the nature of allegations against the Appellant, he is not entitled for

any relief. To support this submission, reference is made to medical

record    indicating   causing   of    abrasion   to   the   neck   of   the

informant/victim.      It is their contention that this is sufficient
                                   -3-
                                                         criappeal638.26.odt

evidence to support the allegations against the Appellant in the First

Information Report.       Learned Counsel for informant has placed

reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of X vs. The

State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2026(1) ACR 637.



5.    There is no dispute about the fact that on previous occasion

informant   had    made     allegation   against   the    Appellant   of   he

committing rape on her.        The Special Judge, in connection with

Crime No. 699/2025, in paragraph No. 10 of the order has made

following observations :-

     “10. It appears that the complainant is married woman.
     She had physical relation with the applicant from January
     – 2025.      She had indulged in the physical relations
     without disclosing the said facts either her husband or to
     the police though she was having opportunities till she
     found by her husband when the applicant had made
     phone call. It appears that the applicant has not sexually
     exploited the complainant merely because she belonged to
     Scheduled Caste.       Therefore, in my view, prima facie
     ingredients of the offence under the SC and ST Act are not
     made out.      Therefor, in my view there is no bar to
     entertain the application for anticipatory bail. Since the
     chargesheet is submitted and the applicant is ready to co-
     operate further investigation as noticed above, custodial
     interrogation of the applicant is not warranted.”
                                 -4-
                                                  criappeal638.26.odt

6.    In the light of these facts, allegations in the First Information

Report are required to be considered.      If allegations in the First

Information Report are accepted and the manner in which the victim

is said to have ravished by the Appellant, it becomes difficult to

accept that no injury except abrasion on neck was caused on her

person.    The causing of injuries on the other part of body of

informant/victim is expected to be caused, having regard to the place

and manner in which alleged sexual intercourse has been done. No

such injuries/abrasions are found on person of victim.            even

abrasion was caused on her person. This becomes relevant in       view

of the fact that this could be a case of possible consensual

relationship between two adult persons.



7.    Insofar as judgment in case of X (supra) wherein minor girl was

gang raped, this Court finds that said judgment has no application to

the present case for complete different facts in both the cases. It is

settled position of law that accused cannot be kept in jail by way of

pre-trial sentence. Once possibility of consensual relationship exists,

there is no reason/justification for rejecting bail application. Hence,

the following order :-
                                      -5-
                                                            criappeal638.26.odt

                                     ORDER



        (i)     Appellant be released on bail on furnishing PR
        bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with
        one surety in the like amount, in connection with
        Crime No.     529/2026 registered with Shrigonda Police
        Station,     District     Ahilyanagar,       for    the    offences
        punishable        under    Sections    64,     115(2),351(2)      of
        Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)
        (i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
        Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

        (ii)    He shall attend the concerned police station as
        and when called.

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

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

        (v)     He   is    further    directed   to        cooperate    the
        investigating agency for further investigation.

        (vi)    Learned APP to communicate this order to the
        concerned Investigating Officer.

7.    Fees of the appointed Counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.


                                                           ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb