KRUSHNA ALIAS SONYA VISHNU JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:43374
                                                -1-
                                                                    949-BA-1318-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1318 OF 2026

                         KRUSHNA ALIAS SONYA VISHNU JADHAV
                                       VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mahesh B. Ubale
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik
              Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pallavi M. Govande (Appointed
              through Legal Aid)
                                              .....

                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.           Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, the

              learned APP for the respondent-State and also the learned

              Advocate for the original victim. With the able assistance of the

              learned advocates, I have also perused the prosecution report filed

              by way of charge-sheet.


              2.           The present application is for regular bail under Section

              483 of the BNSS, seeking enlargement of the applicant on bail, as

              he was arrested in connection with Crime No.115 of 2026,

              registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

              (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2),

              64(2)(i), 69 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 4 and 6 of the

              POCSO Act.
                                 -2-
                                                         949-BA-1318-2026




3.           The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant

initially had lodged an FIR on 21st February, 2026, alleging that,

his daughter, who was studying in the 11th standard, had gone to

the temple on 20th February, 2026. After returning home, he was

informed by the wife that the victim had gone to answer nature's

call and had not returned since then. The victim had carried her

mobile phone with her, which was also switched off. The family

searched for the victim but could not find. They came to know from

their relatives that even the present applicant was not found at his

residence.   The   informant,   therefore,   filed   a   complaint    of

kidnapping at the police station. During the investigation, the

applicant and the victim were found on 21st February, 2026 at one

relative's houses. The victim was rescued and the applicant-

accused was taken into custody and arrested.



4.           The applicant thus came to be arrested on 22 nd

February, 2026 and since then he was in custody. After the victim

was rescued and brought to her parents, her statement was

recorded by the police on 23 rd February, 2026. She narrated that

she had relations with the present applicant and as he was

insisting for marriage, they both had fled to the house of the

applicant's relatives. They resided there overnight, during which
                                -3-
                                                    949-BA-1318-2026

there is an allegation that the applicant forcibly committed sexual

intercourse with the victim. The victim's statement was also

recorded before the Magistrate and she was also medically

examined, wherein the history was given by the present victim to

the Medical Officer which is also recorded and finds place in the

charge-sheet.



5.         Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

age of the victim was 16 years and 4 months and she was well

aware about the act that was being performed. He submits that

they were in good relations and that the entire allegation is a

consensual decision. He submits that the applicant is also of 26

years of age and had an intention of marrying the victim. He

submits that the statement given by the victim to the police and

also the statement which given under Section 183 of the BNSS

before the jurisdictional Magistrate are contradictory to each

other. Before the Magistrate, the victim does not specify that there

was any sexual intercourse committed by the applicant upon her.

He also invited my attention to the history provided by the victim

to the Medical Officer, wherein there are specific mentions that the

relations were out of love and consensual. They both had decided to

flee for getting married. He submits that all this creates doubt in

the prosecution story as to whether the victim was subjected to
                                 -4-
                                                      949-BA-1318-2026

sexual intercourse. He thus prays that the applicant be released on

bail.



6.         Learned APP submits that, though the investigation is

complete, it has brought on record sufficient material to justify the

case that has been put up against the present applicant. The

applicant has committed the alleged offence, which is heinous and

serious in nature. The consensual theory put up by the applicant is

not tenable, as the victim was a minor on the date of commission of

the offence. There is ample medical evidence available on record to

show that the alleged incident of rape has taken place. He thus

prays that the applicant's application be rejected.



7.         Learned Advocate for the informant also objects to the

application. She contends that the applicant is a resident of the

same village. The offences are serious in nature and the victim is a

minor. There is a possibility of tampering with the witnesses. In

addition to whatever has been stated by the learned APP, she also

prays that the application be rejected.



8.         Taking into consideration the submissions of all the

parties and the documents that have been placed on record, it is

desirable to note that the version given by the victim before the
                                 -5-
                                                      949-BA-1318-2026

police on 23rd February, 2026 does make a reference of sexual

intercourse with her at the residence of the applicant's relatives on

the night of 20th February, 2026 and 21st February, 2026.

However, it is pertinent to mention that, in the statement given

under Section 183 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, there is a

complete absence of any such allegation of sexual intercourse

having been committed by the present applicant on the victim.

Even the statement that has been given to the Medical Officer

clearly mentions that both of them were in love affair and had

consensually decided to flee from the residence. The statement

before the Medical Officer also specifically records that they had

consensual peno-vaginal sexual intercourse. This statement has

been given by the victim herself to the Medical Officer.



9.         Though this Court is conscious that the provisions

attracted in the alleged offences are under the POCSO Act and that

the consent of a minor is absolutely irrelevant, still, at this stage,

when the version of the victim has been changing from one

authority to another, the prosecution case cannot be said to be

beyond any reasonable doubt.



10.        At this stage, without going into the merits, considering

that the investigation is complete, the custodial interrogation of
                                    -6-
                                                       949-BA-1318-2026

the present applicant is unwarranted and that the applicant has

been in custody since February 2026, I am inclined to allow this

application and release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following

order:-

                                ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.


(ii)   The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.115 of
       2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati
       Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under
       Sections 137(2), 64(2)(i), 69 and 3(5) of the BNS read with
       Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, on furnishing personal
       bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
       with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to
       the following conditions :

       a)    The applicant shall not enter the village Mawasgavhan,
             Tq. Paithan, where the victim resides, till framing of the
             charge. The applicant shall stay outside the said village
             for the said period.


       b)    The applicant shall attend the trial Court on every date
             fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted.


       c)    The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
             threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
             prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
             prosecution evidence.
                                      -7-
                                                           949-BA-1318-2026

          d)   The applicant shall furnish his current residential
               addresses and mobile number to the Investigating
               Officer and the Trial Court within seven days of release,
               intimate   any   change      forthwith,   and    attend   the
               Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
               investigation is required.


          e)   The applicant shall not leave India without prior
               permission of the trial Court and, if he posses passport,
               shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven
               days of his release.


          f)   The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
               a similar nature while on bail.


          g)   Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
               prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.


          h)   All observations in this order are prima facie and
               confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial
               Court shall decide the case independently on the
               evidence led before it.


(iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.



                                            (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                   JUDGE



Tandale