NITESH RAM CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41239
                                                1                      923BA1536.2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               923 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1536 OF 2026

               Nitesh Ram Chavan
               Age : 23 years, Occu. Service,
               R/o. At Post Tabela,
               Ta. Lonar, Dist. Buldhana.                               ...Applicant

                      VERSUS

               The State Of Maharashtra                                 ...Respondent

                                                  ...
               Mr. Sunil B. Surse a/w Mr. Jitenddra S. Jain - Advocates for Applicant
               Mr. S. A. Gaikwad - APP for the State
                                                  ...

                                            WITH
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3264 OF 2026 IN BA/1536/2026
                                              ...

                                        CORAM :      HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                        DATED :      04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026


               PER COURT :

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3264 OF 2026 : -

               1.          The Application seeking permission to assist the Public

               Prosecutor is allowed and disposed of.


               BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1536 OF 2026 : -


               2.          By the present Application under Section 483 of the

               Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [In short “BNSS”], the

               Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0287 of 2026,
                                 2                      923BA1536.2026.odt

registered with CIDCO Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for

the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, and 351(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’].



3.          The record indicates that the Applicant’s first bail

application was rejected. However, thereafter, the investigation was

completed and the charge sheet came to be filed. Following the filing of

the charge sheet, the applicant again preferred an application before the

learned Trial Court, which also came to be rejected. The applicant has

thereafter approached this Court. The applicant was arrested on 13 th

May 2026 and has been in custody ever since.



4.          The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant and the

Applicant became acquainted with each other while both were preparing

for police recruitment. They developed a friendship, and the Informant

would occasionally visit the Applicant with food. Thereafter, the

Applicant was selected for the S.R.P.F. According to the Informant, in

October 2024, the Applicant represented to her that, since they belong

to the same community, they would marry after the completion of his

training. It is alleged that, on 18th October 2024, when the Informant

visited the Applicant’s room, the Applicant established a physical

relationship with her against her will. Thereafter, he allegedly continued

to establish physical relations with her from time to time on the promise
                                  3                       923BA1536.2026.odt

of marriage. It is further alleged that the Applicant told the Informant

that he had taken her private photographs and subsequently threatened

to make those photographs viral when she insisted upon marriage. The

alleged relationship continued until 22 nd December 2025, and the FIR

was subsequently lodged on 11th May 2026.



5.             Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that

the Informant was admittedly a major throughout the relevant period

and that the material on record itself demonstrates a long-standing

relationship between the parties. It is submitted that both the Applicant

and the Informant were acquainted with each other well before the

alleged incident and that the relationship continued for a considerable

period. He also invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the

investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed

and, therefore, submits that further custodial interrogation of the

Applicant is not necessary. He further submits that the Applicant is 23

years of age, is serving as a Constable in the S.R.P.F., and has no criminal

antecedents.



6.             The applicant undertakes to remain present before this

Court and the Trial Court and not to tamper with the prosecution

evidence or influence the witnesses. The record indeed discloses that no

criminal antecedents have been reported against him.
                                   4                      923BA1536.2026.odt




7.           The learned APP, however, opposes the application. It is

submitted that the allegations are serious and include repeated sexual

relations on the promise of marriage, as well as a threat to circulate the

private photographs of the informant. The prosecution apprehends that

the applicant, being a Police Constable, may, if released, influence the

informant or the prosecution witnesses. A similar apprehension weighed

with the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the earlier application.




8.           It is important to note the development that took place in

the   Courtroom     during   the   hearing    of   the   application.   The

informant/victim, who is personally present before the Court and is

represented by her learned Advocate, directly interacted with the Court

and stated that she has no objection to the Applicant being released on

bail and that she intends to marry the Applicant. The learned Counsel

for the Applicant, upon taking instructions from the father of the

Applicant, who is also present in the Court, stated that the Applicant is

also willing to marry the informant upon his release.



9.           Though the learned APP opposes the application, stating

that the conduct of the Applicant does not justify the acceptance of the

said undertaking, for the reason that, initially, during his preparation for

police recruitment, the Applicant promised the complainant to marry her
                                 5                      923BA1536.2026.odt

and, on that pretext, maintained a physical relationship with her.

However, after securing the post of Constable in the S.R.P.F., he refused

to marry her. According to the learned APP, the conduct of the Applicant

speaks volumes. He apprehends that, after obtaining bail, the Applicant

may again refuse to marry the complainant. Therefore, the learned APP

submits that the application should not be considered on the basis of the

undertaking given by the father of the Applicant.



10.          I have considered the rival submissions and have also

perused the investigation papers. At the outset, it needs to be clarified

that the Court is concerned, at this stage, only with the question of the

Applicant’s release on bail. The Court is neither called upon to

determine whether the physical relationship between the parties was

consensual, nor to finally determine whether the ingredients of Sections

64(2)(m) or 69 of the BNS are established. These issues will necessarily

have to be proved by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court.

Equally, the present order cannot be construed as compelling either of

the parties to marry, or as making the proposed marriage a condition for

the grant of bail.



11.          Certain circumstances, however, are relevant for the limited

purpose of bail. The informant was a major throughout the entire period

in question. The material on record indicates that the Applicant and the
                                 6                      923BA1536.2026.odt

informant knew each other, as they were preparing for police

recruitment and had developed a relationship. The allegations

themselves span the period from October 2024 until 22 nd December

2025. Significantly, the material placed on record also refers to a

consent affidavit executed by the Applicant and the informant on 29th

January 2026, in the presence of witnesses, regarding their proposed

marriage. According to the said document, the Applicant stated that he

would marry the informant after completion of his training and would

not marry any other person.



12.         At this stage, the distinction between a promise that was

false from its inception and a subsequent failure to honour a genuine

promise assumes significance. There is no doubt that the allegation

concerning the first incident, dated 18 October 2024, namely, that it

occurred against the will of the informant, is undoubtedly serious and

cannot be brushed aside merely because the parties subsequently

continued their relationship. However, seriousness of the accusation is

one of the relevant considerations and cannot by itself justify continued

pre-trial incarceration in every case. The investigation is already

complete and the charge sheet has been filed. The Applicant is therefore

no longer required for custodial interrogation. He has no reported

criminal antecedents and is stated to be employed with S.R.P.F. His

presence during trial can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions.
                                  7                      923BA1536.2026.odt

The learned Session Judge had declined bail principally on the

apprehension that the Applicant may pressurize or threaten the

informant and that there may be danger to her life if he is released on

bail.



12.1.        The situation before this Court is materially different. The

informant is personally present before the Court, though represented by

her Advocate. She has unequivocally stated that she has no objection to

the Applicant being released on bail. The apprehension expressed

earlier, therefore, considerably loses its force. Nevertheless, appropriate

conditions can adequately safeguard the informant and the prosecution

witnesses.



13.          It is necessary to reiterate that the informant's consent to

the Applicant being released on bail, or the stated intention of the

parties to marry, cannot result in the compounding or effacement of the

alleged offence, nor is the Court granting bail as a consideration for

marriage. The subsequent stand of the informant is being noticed only

as one of the circumstances relevant to the assessment of the

apprehension of intimidation or interference with the prosecution,

whereas the offences alleged, if ultimately established, remain entirely

open for determination by the Trial Court. Having regard to the age of

the parties, the nature and duration of their relationship as emerging
                                    8                     923BA1536.2026.odt

from the record, the subsequent document concerning the marriage, and

the subsequent statement made by the father of the Applicant, along

with the condition that the Applicant shall file an undertaking before

this Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of his release,

stating that he is ready and willing to marry the informant, I am inclined

to release the Applicant on bail. Hence, the following order:-

                                   ORDER

[i]            The application stands allowed.

[ii]           The Applicant, Nitesh Ram Chavan, be released on bail in

connection with Crime No. 0287 of 2026, registered at CIDCO Police

Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 64(2)(m), 69, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- [Rupees Fifty

Thousand] with one or two sureties in the like amount, on the following

conditions:-


       [a]     The Applicant, after release from the custody, shall file an
               undertaking in this Court within a period of two (2) weeks
               thereafter clearly reiterating the oral undertaking given to
               this Court on his behalf at the time when the application for
               bail is being considered.

       [b]     The Applicant is put to notice that, in the event the
               undertaking is not filed or the Applicant has no intention to
               marry, the application for cancellation of bail will be
               reconsidered and decided on its own merits.
                                                                 9                     923BA1536.2026.odt

                                      [c]   The Applicant shall attend the CIDCO Police Station, District
                                            Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, on the first Monday of every
                                            month.

                                      [d]   The Applicant shall not, in any manner whatsoever, tamper
                                            with the prosecution evidence.

                             14.            The Application stands disposed of.




                                                                       [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
                                                                                JUDGE

                             SG Punde




Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/09/2026 18:46:16