NITIN SUNIL SHELKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                  1                     952BA1544.2026.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               952 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1544 OF 2026

                            Nitin Sunil Shelke
                                 VERSUS
                  The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                    ...
Mr. Sunil B. Surse a/w Mr. Jitendra S. Jain - Advocate for Applicant
Mr. K. K. Naik - APP for the State
Mr. R. N. Bharawadkar – Advocate (appointed Through Legal Aid) for
Respondent No. 2 through Video Conferencing
                                    ...

                         CORAM :         HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                         DATED :         23RD SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :

1.          Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the

learned APP for the State.


2.          The learned Advocate for the Original Complainant/Victim

has been appointed through the Legal Aid. Though his name appears on

the screen, he is not visible nor audible. This matter was kept back for

the purpose of enabling the learned Advocate appointed through the

Legal Aid to represent the Victim, however, even on the second call, his

name is only reflecting on the screen.



3.          The present Application seeks regular bail in connection

with C.R. No. 0061 of 2026, registered with Virgaon Police Station,

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offence punishable under

Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and subsequently added
                                  2                    952BA1544.2026.odt

Sections 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4, 8 and 12 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Sections 3(1)

(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in the charge-sheet. The Applicant came

to be arrested on 04.04.2026.



4.          Before proceeding to decide the matter on merits, it would

be appropriate to note that, on the date of commission of the offence,

the Victim was 17 years, 10 months and 21 days old, while the Applicant

was 23 years of age.



5.          The case of the prosecution initially arose from the

information provided by the parents of the Victim, who lodged a case of

kidnapping against the present Applicant on the basis of certain

photographs noticed by the mother in the mobile phone of the Victim.

Subsequently, after the Victim was found, her statement came to be

recorded, wherein she alleged that she was in a friendly and love

relationship with the Applicant and that they were constantly chatting

with each other on Instagram and Snapchat. From time to time, they

used to roam around on his motorcycle and had also visited places such

as Shirdi, including the Saibaba Temple at Shirdi.



6.          It is alleged that, as the parents of the Victim were forcing
                                  3                      952BA1544.2026.odt

her to get married, the present Applicant lured the Victim by stating that

they would both run away from home and get married. Accordingly, on

03.03.2026, the Victim eloped with the present Applicant, and they went

to the flat of the Applicant's friend at Hinjewadi, where they resided

from 04.03.2026 to 04.04.2026.



7.          It is alleged that, during their stay, the Applicant had sexual

intercourse with the Victim on three occasions without her consent and

by giving her a promise of marriage. When the Victim was brought by

the Police to her residential house on 04.04.2026, she gave a statement

alleging that the Applicant had forcibly subjected her to sexual

intercourse. Consequently, the present offence came to be registered.



8.          The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the age

of the Victim on the date of the offence was 17 years, 10 months and 21

days. He submits that she was hardly a few days short of attaining

majority. However, he submits that, taking into consideration the age of

the Victim, it cannot be said that she was unaware of the consequences

of her conduct. He further argues that this is a case where the present

Applicant was 23 years of age and the Victim, who was about to attain

the age of 18 years, were in love with each other and, therefore, they

had, with consent, eloped from their respective residences and resided

together, during which the alleged act has taken place. He submits that
                                  4                     952BA1544.2026.odt

the present Applicant has been in Jail since 04.04.2026. There is no

likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future and, therefore, the

Applicant may be released on bail.



9.          The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State

vehemently opposes the Application, stating that the theory of consent

put forth by the learned Advocate for the Applicant cannot be made

applicable to the present case, for the simple reason that the Victim was

a minor on the date of commission of the offence. Whether the Victim

was 17 years and 10 months old on the date of the offence is hardly of

any significance, as the law requires that any Victim below the age of 18

years be treated as a minor. He submits that the Applicant was well

aware that the Victim was a minor and that forcibly having sexual

intercourse with a minor girl constitutes a serious offence. He further

submits that the Applicant has a criminal antecedent of a similar nature,

wherein another girl aged 17 years was also lured by the present

Applicant on the pretext of a false promise to marry. In the said offence,

the Applicant was released on bail and, during the subsistence of the

said bail, he committed the present offence. Thus, the Applicant is a

habitual offender and, therefore, ought not to be released on bail. He

prays that the Application be dismissed.



10.         After the matter was fully argued, learned Advocate
                                 5                      952BA1544.2026.odt

Mr. R. N. Bharaswadkar appeared on the screen. He submitted that he

has been engaged by the Legal Aid to represent the Respondent–Victim.

His appearance is noted.



11.         I have heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the

learned APP, and have also perused the entire charge-sheet annexed to

the present Application. Along with the statement of the Victim dated

04.04.2026, it is also important to note that the statement of the Victim

was recorded before the learned Magistrate on 10.04.2026. Though the

said statement reiterates what has been stated before the Police

regarding the incident and the love affair and friendship with the

present Applicant, the Victim has tried to improve her case before the

learned Magistrate by stating that she was kept in a locked room and

was also assaulted by the present Applicant. There are also allegations

levelled against the friend of the present Applicant that the Victim was

tortured and was made to perform all the domestic work. Without

commenting upon the veracity or correctness of the statement, the only

fact that requires consideration is that, on the basis of the said

statement, there are certain discrepancies which the prosecution will

have to prove by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court. The

other circumstance that has tilted in favour of the present Applicant is

the relationship between him and the Victim.      It is admitted by the

Victim that there was a love affair between the Victim and the present
                                   6                      952BA1544.2026.odt

Applicant. The Applicant is 23 years of age, and the Victim was about to

attain majority within a couple of months. Therefore, it cannot be said

that she was unaware of the consequences that she might have suddenly

realised upon completing the age of 18 years. Taking into consideration

that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and

the period of custody undergone by the present Applicant since

04.04.2026, I am inclined to allow the present Application. Hence, I pass

the following order: -

                                  ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)   The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.
       0061 of 2026, registered with Virgaon Police Station, Chhatrapati
       Sambhajinagar (Rural) on furnishing a personal bond of
       Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one or two solvent
       sureties in the like amount, subject to the following conditions :

       a)    The Applicants shall attend Virgaon Police Station every
             Monday between 12:00 hrs. and 14:00 hrs. until the
             framing of the charge.

       b)    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.

       c)    The applicant shall furnish his current residential address
             and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the trial
             Court within seven days of release.
                                                                  7                       952BA1544.2026.odt

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

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

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

                                      g)    The    Applicant     shall   not    enter    the    Chhatrapati
                                            Sambhajinagar District until the framing of the charge,
                                            except for the purpose of attending Virgaon Police Station,
                                            Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, as directed, and for attending
                                            the Trial Court on the dates fixed for the trial.

                                      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

                             SG Punde




Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/09/2026 17:44:18