Bombay High Court

ARBAJ AMIN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: MEHROZ K PATHAN

Holding

The anticipatory bail applications are allowed, subject to conditions, as the applicants are not deemed to be a flight or tampering risk.

Summary

The applicants, relatives of the main accused Sahil, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.188 of 2025 alleging kidnapping and sexual intercourse of a 16‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleged the applicants abetted the crime and might tamper with evidence. The court examined the investigation, noting the victim’s statement that she voluntarily left home and accompanied Sahil out of love, and considered precedents on consensual relationships between minors and young adults. Citing Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, the court highlighted the need for a "Romeo‑Juliet" clause and the importance of consent. Relying on Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court granted anticipatory bail, confirming earlier interim orders with conditions to cooperate with police and not tamper with evidence.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants are liable to be arrested for alleged kidnapping and sexual intercourse of a minor.
Whether the applicants, as relatives of the main accused, pose a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Whether the victim's consent, given her age, mitigates the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 3(5), 482, 64(2)(m), 69
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
minor consent
Romeo‑Juliet clause
BNSS
SC/ST Act
POCSO Act
evidence tampering
family members liability

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4719

935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 942 OF 2025
1. Amin Abbas Pathan
2. Shabana Amin Pathan
3. Ahmad Gulmahmmad Pathan
4. Ashu Hujafar Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1424 OF 2025
Arbaj Amin Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2026
IN ABA/942/2025
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2026
IN ABA/1424/2025
…
• Mr. Vikrant Valse, Advocate h/f. Mr. F. K. Patel, Advocate for
Applicants in both Anticipatory Bail Applications
• Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State in both
Anticipatory Bail Applications
• Ms. Nupur Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
(Appointed) in both Anticipatory Bail Applications
…

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 28.01.2026

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP

for the respondent-State.

Jhs/ 1/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

2. The applicants have approached this Court apprehending their

arrest in connection with FIR No.188 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025,

registered with Ahmedpur Police Station, District Latur, for the

offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 69, 64(2)(m) and 3(5) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)

(w)(ii) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Sections 4, 8 and 12

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. This Court, vide interim order dated 24.07.2025 passed in ABA

No.942 of 2025 and vide interim order dated 21.08.2025 passed in

ABA No.1424 of 2025, protected the applicants subject to conditions

that they shall attend the concerned police station and cooperate

with the investigation. It is submitted that the applicants have duly

complied with the said conditions.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the principal

allegations of kidnapping and forcible sexual intercourse are against

the main accused Sahil. The present applicants are relatives of the

said accused and have been falsely implicated with an intention to

rope in the entire family members of main accused Sahil. It is

submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and are

willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

It is further submitted that since the applicants have complied with

Jhs/ 2/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

the interim orders, they deserve confirmation of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned assisting

counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the applications contending

that the applicants are involved in a serious offence of kidnapping of

a minor girl. It is submitted that the applicants have abetted the

commission of the crime by the main accused. Being close relatives of

the main accused, there is a likelihood that if released on bail, the

applicants may tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence

witnesses. Hence, it is prayed that the applications be rejected.

6. I have gone through the investigation papers made available by

the learned APP. A perusal of the investigation papers shows that the

victim girl was found along with the accused Sahil at Pune on

16.04.2025. The statement of the victim girl was recorded by the

prosecution on 17.04.2025 under Section 183 of the BNSS. A perusal

of the statement of the victim indicates that she had willingly left her

house with Sahil and travelled to Pune and Latur after her last

examination held on 18.03.2025. A perusal of the statement of the

accused further shows that the victim, who was aged about 16 years,

had voluntarily left her house and accompanied the main accused

Sahil out of love and affection.

7. Considering the age of the victim at the time of the alleged

kidnapping, the victim girl was aged about 16 years, whereas the

Jhs/ 3/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

main accused Sahil was aged about 21 years. The Division Bench of

this Court in Sunil Mahadev Patil vs. State of Maharashtra , SCC

OnLine Bom 6204 (2015), was pleased to observe as under:—

“7. In the case of S.Varadarajan (supra) though the age of consent
though as per law was 18 years, when the girl eloped with the
accused, she was approximately 17 years and 9 months old. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Varadarajan has
distinguished Section 361 on the point of taking from the guardian
or enticing the girl and the girl herself leaving the house of the
parents of her own and accused allowing her to be in his company
and has held that it not a case of rape. In the case of S. Varadarajan,
the matter was finally heard and the accused was convicted. In
appeal, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be culled out
that if a girl takes initiative or she is active in taking decision of
going away with the boy and she understands the meaning of man-
woman relationship and of marriage, then the rigor of offence is
reduced.
8. It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan was decided
in the year 1967 when the women were not enjoying the freedom
which today the women have. Albeit the Hon'ble Supreme Court
then has taken a pragmatic view and has acquitted Varadarajan.
Now we come across such cases everyday. If a girl is a minor
between the age group of 15 to 18 years and if it can be safely
inferred that her consent was obvious, then it is a mitigating
circumstance. Some trial Courts dealing with such Bail Applications,
especially after Nirbhaya case, started taking a strict approach and
the accused are denied the bail only on the ground that the
prosecutrix being minor below 18 years, her consent is immaterial,
therefore, in the case of rape on such minor, no bail can be granted.
This is a matter of concern.”

8. Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

Anurudh and Another; 2026 SCC OnlLine SC 40 has observed as

under :-

Jhs/ 4/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

“The Delhi High Court in the case of Sahil v. The State NCT of Delhi;
2024 DHC 6100 was pleased to observe that the Court noted in para
11 of the order that POCSO cases filed at the behest of a girl’s
family objecting to romantic involvement with a young boy have
become common place and consequent thereto these young boys
languish in jails. Therein, reference is also made to an order of the
Gujarat High Court, where the Court noted that considering the
closeness in age of the prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact
that she had left home of her own accord observed that the
application deserved consideration.

Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been taken of
the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be circulated to
the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider initiation of
steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter alia, the
introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine
adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a
mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the
use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”

9. Thus, it can be seen that, taking into consideration the

repeated judicial pronouncements of various High Courts across the

country, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has advised the Government of

India to introduce a “Romeo-Juliet clause” exempting genuine adult

relationships from the rigours of the law, while enacting a mechanism

to enable the prosecution of those persons who misuse such laws to

settle scores. The implication of all the family members of the main

accused, Sahil, appears to be one such attempt by the family

members of the victim to settle scores with the family members of the

main accused, Sahil.

Jhs/ 5/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

10. The main accused Sahil aged 21 years was already arrested in

the present crime. As far as the role of the present applicants is

concerned, they are near relatives of the main accused Sahil and

alleged only to have abetted the commission of the offence.

Considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during

investigation, and the fact that the investigation has culminated in

filing of the charge-sheet, I am inclined to protect the applicants in

exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

11. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

i. The Anticipatory Bail Applications are allowed.

ii. The interim orders dated 24.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 are
hereby confirmed, subject to the following further
conditions :-

A) The Applicants are directed to attend the concerned
police station and report to the Investigating Officer as
and when called by the Investigating Officer.

B) The Applicants shall also cooperate with the
investigation.

C) The Applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.

Jhs/ 6/7
935 ABA NO. 942 OF 2025

D) The applicants shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar
Card and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along
with the addresses and mobile numbers of two nearest
relatives.

12. Needless to state that a single violation of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the

anticipatory bail granted herein.

13. The observations made herein are prima facie and shall not

influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits.

14. Fees of the learned appointed counsel, Ms. Nupur Paliwal,

Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (Appointed) in both Anticipatory Bail

Applications, shall be paid as per the schedule of fees prescribed by

the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad,

expeditiously.

15. In view of the above, the Anticipatory Bail Applications stand

disposed of.

16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

Jhs/ 7/7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…