Bombay High Court

RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJU DAMU ALIAS DAMLA RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

Bail was granted as the applicant was not shown to be complicit on a prima facie basis and the trial was unlikely to conclude promptly.

Summary

The applicant, Rajendra Alias Raju Damu, was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged sexual assault of a minor. The FIR was lodged after a delay and the prosecution’s case relied on the victim’s statements, which the defence argued contained material variances, and a medical report that did not support the allegations. The court observed that the applicant was implicated largely on suspicion, with no prima facie incriminating material, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. Considering the lack of substantive evidence and the risk of prolonged incarceration, the court exercised its discretion to grant regular bail, subject to strict conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure the applicant’s presence at trial. The order expressly stated that the bail decision was not an endorsement of the merits and that the trial court would continue independently.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
Whether there exists a prima facie case sufficient to justify continued detention of the applicant.
Whether the trial is likely to be concluded within a reasonable period.
Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137(2), 3(5), 64(2)(M), 65(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 17, 4, 6
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)

Subjects

bail
sexual offences
minor
POCSO
SC/ST Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
evidence
trial delay
presumption of innocence

Judgment

                                    -1-
                                                      ba1827.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              935 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1827 OF 2025

Rajendra Alias Raju Damu
Alias Damla Rathod                              ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another              …..Respondents

Mr. S. S. Jadhav, along with Mr. K. P. Rathod and Mr. N. P. Chudiwal,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. D. B. Bhange, APP for the State.
Ms. A. S. Madake, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2.

                                  CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                  DATE  : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.       Learned Counsel Ms. Madake is appointed to represent

Respondent No. 2.



2.    Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.

85/2025 registered with Naldurg Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv, for

the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 115(2), 64(2)(M),

65(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 4, 6 and 17 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sections 3(1)(w)

(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
                                 -2-
                                                        ba1827.25.odt



3.    The case of prosecution is that on 12.03.2025 at about 10.00

informant along with the victim and family members were sleeping in

a room. On 13.03.2025 at about 4.00 am when the informant could

not find the victim in the room, asked his wife to search for the

victim. When the victim could not be traced out, the informant went

to the house of the Applicant, his nephew informed that the

Applicant is not in the house since 3.00 am. On the basis of these

allegations, the First Information Report came to be lodged.



4.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant

is falsely involved in the alleged crime. Applicant is arraigned in the

crime on the basis of suspicion.       There is unexplained delay in

lodging the First Information Report. The statements of the victim

suffer from material variances on the point of sexual assault. She

also does not maintain version in relation to the occurrence of the

incident. Further, medical examination report does not support the

case of the prosecution.      Applicant is arrested on 12.06.2025.

Investigation in the crime is complete and charge-sheet is filed.

Hence, prayed to allow the application.
                                 -3-
                                                        ba1827.25.odt

5.    Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant,

vehemently opposed the application citing serious nature of crime. It

is submitted that the Applicant is indulged in serious crime of

victimising a minor girl. An apprehension is also expressed that if

the Applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of

tampering with prosecution evidence.      Hence, prayed to reject the

application.



6.    Upon considering submissions of both sides and on perusal of

the record, including charge-sheet, it is prima facie evident that the

Applicant is arraigned as accused only on the ground of suspicion.

Prima facie, there is no incriminating material to indicate complicity

of the Applicant in the crime.       Even prima facie, the medical

examination report does not support the case of the prosecution, so

also, the statements of the victim suffer from material variance.



7.    Nevertheless, investigation in the crime is complete for all

purpose and intent. Resultantly, charge-sheet is filed. The Applicant

is arrested on 12.06.2025. Having regard to the number of witnesses

prosecution seeks to examine, the trial is not likely to be concluded
                                            -4-
                                                              ba1827.25.odt

within a reasonable period. In the event of material variances in the

statement of victim and absence of medical examination report

supporting the case of the prosecution, further incarceration of the

Applicant is unjustified. Hence, I am inclined to exercise discretion

in favour of the Applicant.



8.          Hence, the following order :-

                                        ORDER

     (i)          Application is allowed.
     (ii)         Applicant Rajendra Alias Raju Damu Alias Damla
     Rathod, be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond in the
     sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one or two local
     solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime
     No. 85/2025 registered with Naldurg Police Station, Dist.
     Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2),
     115(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
     sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual
     Offences Act and sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled
     Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on
     the following conditions :-
            (a)     The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
            witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in
            any manner.
            (b)     The Applicant shall attend the trial on each and
            every date unless exempted by the Trial Court and shall
                                   -5-
                                                             ba1827.25.odt

      not leave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned Police
      Station till conclusion of the trial.
      (c)     The Applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards
      to the Investigating Officer and detailed address and
      phone numbers of the Applicant and two of the near
      relatives.
      (d)     In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
      Applicant, it is open for the prosecution to move
      concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail.


  (iii)     Needless to state that, nothing stated hereinabove shall
  be construed as an expression on merits of the case. Learned
  Trial court shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by
  the observations made hereinabove.


  (iv)      The    High   Court   Legal       Services   Sub-Committee,
  Aurangabad, to pay fees of learned Counsel appointed for
  Respondent No. 2 as per rules.


                                                (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…