XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:44130


                                                                    CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2046 OF 2026
                               IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2026

                 Rahul Suresh @ Sureshchand Raka,
                 Age : 50 years, Occupation : Advocate,
                 R/o : Bhagwati Complex, Georai,
                 Taluka Georai, District Beed.                     … Applicant
                                                                   [Orig. Accused]
                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Inspector,
                 Georai Police Station,
                 Taluka and District Beed.                         … Respondent

                                             WITH
                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3488 OF 2026
                               IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2026

                       X Y Z (Name withheld)                       … Applicant
                                                                    (victim)
                       Versus

                 1.    The State of Maharashtra
                       Through the Police Inspector,
                       Police Station Georai,
                       District Beed.

                 2.    Rahul Suresh @ Sureshchand Raka,
                       Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
                       R/o : Bhagwati Complex, Georai,
                       Taluka Georai, District Beed.               … Respondents
                                                  …..
                 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji a/w Ms. Monica Dahat, Advocates for the
                 Applicant in Criminal Application No. 2046 of 2026.
                 Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade, Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal
                 Application No. 3488 of 2026.
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Respondent-State in both Applications.
                                                  .....
                                                   CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                  -2-


                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                         Reserved on        : 28.09.2026
                         Pronounced on      : 29.09.2026

ORDER :

1.    Criminal Application No. 3488 of 2026 is preferred by the

original informant, thereby seeking leave to intervene in the appeal

preferred by the appellant/convict for offence under Sections 376(2)

(f)(k)(n), 452 and 323 of Indian Penal Code [IPC], as well as to

oppose the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.


2.    For the reasons mentioned in Criminal Application No. 3488 of

2026, the applicant is allowed to intervene. Criminal Application

No.3488 of 2026 is accordingly disposed off.


3.    Criminal Application No.2046 of 2026 is for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail in the backdrop of conviction recorded by

learned Sessions Judge, Beed dated 30.03.2026 in Sessions Case

No.103 of 2017 holding the applicant guilty for offence under

Sections 376(2)(f)(k)(n), 452 and 323 of IPC.


4.    Praying for relief, learned Counsel for the applicant would

submit that there is false implication. He pointed out that accused and

victim are first cousins of each other. He pointed out that though
                                                     CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                  -3-

complainant stated that there was forceful sexual relations earlier or

prior to the incident in question, at no point of time there was any

complaint. It is pointed out that though there are allegations of

blackmailing in the backdrop of video of victim while bathing to be

made viral or about forceful sexual relations in the lodge, no such

video clipping was seized by the Investigating Officer and there is

admission to that extent in his cross-examination.


5.    It is submitted that there are allegations about accused sending

that two of her siblings for eating ice-cream and ravishing victim,

after they left. Only one of the cousins is examined. Learned Counsel

for the applicant pointed out that, surprisingly, the victim has

admitted that while she was travelling with the accused in his car, the

said vehicle passed by her own house, but she did not raise any hue

and cry, which itself suggests that she was a consenting party.

According to him, even manager of the lodge had admitted that

victim has come voluntarily and as such, there was no use of force.

According to learned Counsel for the applicant, testimony of victim is

full of improvements, which is not part of the report lodged by her. It

is pointed out that medical expert, who examined victim, has not

come across any signs of recent vaginal or anal intercourse and thus,

story of prosecution was falsified, but learned trial Court has accepted
                                                   CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                  -4-

the same and, therefore, the appeal has been preferred. In the light

of above grounds, appellant has good case in appeal and as it would

take long time to be heard and decided, relief of suspension of

sentence and grant of bail is urged for.


6.     Learned APP as well as learned Counsel for the victim both

opposed the application on the ground that serious offence is proved

to be committed. They pointed out that the accused, who was married

and was also a cousin of the victim, had repeatedly ravished her by

blackmailing her with threats to make her obscene videos viral. They

further pointed out that the incident dated 22.04.2017 was promptly

reported and that the victim was assaulted when she offered

resistance. The medical expert has noted injuries on the person of the

victim. The victim has narrated the incident. Therefore, being serious

offence and moreover, the applicant, being close relative of the

victim, apprehension is expressed about possibility of misuse of

liberty.


7.     Heard. Perused the papers. Complainant, who is 20 years of

age, has reported that she resides with her parents, other siblings on

the ground floor, whereas accused, her first cousin, who resides on

the upper floor in the said building. According to her, the accused

had an evil eye on her and tried to make advances towards her. She
                                                    CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                    -5-

reported that about a year prior to the incident, while she was in

college, the accused came there, called her, made her sit in his vehicle

and took her to a lodge, where he had forcible sexual relations with

her and videographed the incident. Thereafter, by threatening to

make the said video viral, he repeatedly had forcible sexual relations

with her. According to her on 22.04.2017, when her parents were out

of the house and she was in the company of her cousins, who had

come for vacation, while her brother had gone to the shop, the

accused came there and offered money to her cousins to eat ice

cream. After they left, he forcibly took her to the room where TV was

kept and demanded physical relations with her. Upon her refusal, he

allegedly assaulted her, closed the door and had forcible sexual

relations with her. Her elder brother arrived. At that time, accused

fled and hence, she filed report.


8.    There is also evidence of the victim’s brother, PW8, at Exhibit-

114/C, who deposed that upon receiving a phone call from his two

cousins, he reached home and found the door locked from inside. As

no one answered, he gained entry from the back door. At that time,

he spotted the accused leaving the house and also found his sister

weeping, whereupon she disclosed the incident to him.
                                                    CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                  -6-

9.    The medical expert, PW11, has noted and described as many as

seven injuries on the person of the victim and has opined that the

injuries were indicative of a forcible act, including signs of struggle,

and that there was evidence of non-penetrative sexual assault.

Therefore, even though the victim was medically examined on the

same day, i.e. 22.04.2017, the medical expert did not find any

evidence of recent forcible sexual intercourse, thereby rendering

occurrence of 22.04.2017 of forcible sexual assault doubtful.


10.   As pointed out, indeed, prima facie there are variances in the

story narrated at the time of report by the victim and the one deposed

by her in the Court. Her report shows that she informed police that

during the occurrence of 22.04.2017, when he closed the room, she,

on her own accord, seems to have removed her undergarments. It

also appears that she has not made her escape good or tried run while

he was undressing himself or while he was applying condom. The

neighbouring lady, whose phone was used to apprise the brother of

the victim, who claims to have arrived only thereupon, has not been

examined. Therefore, there are grounds to be dealt in appeal.


11.   Here, what is central to the prosecution story is that there was

blackmailing to the victim by showing her own obscene/nude videos

of victim allegedly possessed by the accused in his mobile, however,
                                                   CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                  -7-

as pointed out the Investigating Officer in paragraph No.16 of his

cross-examination admitted that during investigation, videos of victim

from bathroom as well as lodge are not found. Therefore, there is no

evidence on the core point of prosecution case. Further, as pointed

out, victim in her cross-examination, has admitted that she passed

over her own house while being taken to the lodge, where she has

spent hours in the company of accused, but has not reported it to

anyone.


12.     Resultantly, there are good grounds to be dealt, but in appeal

and as much more time would be required to hear the same, the relief

as prayed deserves to be granted. Hence, the following order :-


                                ORDER


I.    Criminal Application No.2046 of 2026 is hereby allowed.


II.   The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant – Rahul
      Suresh @ Sureshchand Raka by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed
      in Sessions Case No.103 of 2017 on 30.03.2026, stands
      suspended till the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal
      No.425 of 2026.


III. The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
      Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like
      amount.
                                                       CriAppln-2046-2026+
                                    -8-


IV. The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity.


V.    The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge
      once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,
      commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and thereafter,
      the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent appearances.


VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to
      remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform this
      court about the same and in that eventuality, the prosecution
      would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail
      granted to the applicant.


VII. Bail before the trial court.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm