VINOD RAJARAM DAMALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:1793




                                              -1-
                                                                      ba2346.25.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2346 OF 2025

              Vinod Rajaram Damale                            ….Applicant

              VERSUS

              The State of Maharashtra & another              …..Respondents

              Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for Applicant.
              Mrs. P. P. Diggikar, APP for the State.
              Ms. S. R. Khan, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2.

                                            CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                            DATE  : 13th JANUARY, 2026.
              PER COURT :


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

              348/2025 registered with Rajur Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar, for

              the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 142, 115(2),

              351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6,

              8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.



              2.    In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2025 at

              9.00 am the informant had been at Mutkhel and his wife had been to

              the agricultural field. Victim, i.e. his daughter aged 12 years, was

              alone in the house. When he returned home, his wife informed him

              that when he returned home from work, the victim was not present

              in the home. Accordingly, searched the victim but could not trace
                                -2-
                                                       ba2346.25.odt

her. Thereafter, on 05.09.2025 at 3.00 am, they found the victim in

the house of one Vitthal Ide and they took her to the home.       On

08.09.2025 the victim told the informant and his wife that on

04.09.2025 at about 4.30 pm, the Applicant and one Vitthal Ide,

came to her and asked her to accompany them. She refused to join

them and tried to escape from there.     At that time, the Applicant

caught hold her left hand. When the victim tried to shout, the co-

accused threatened her to kill. Thereafter they took her to the house

of co-accused and confined her there and at about 10.00 pm, co-

accused Vitthal came to the house and told the victim that he wanted

to marry her and committed forcible sexual assault on her. Again at

12.00 midnight, he committed forcible sexual assault on her and

threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter he

left the house.   Accordingly, First Information Report came to be

registered.



3.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that there is delay

of three days in lodging First Information Report. The Applicant only

accompanied the co-accused.     No specific role is attributed against

him. Further, there is variance in the statement of the victim about

the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the Applicant is an
                                 -3-
                                                         ba2346.25.odt

innocent person and has no nexus with the alleged incident except

accompanying the co-accused.       The investigation in the crime is

completed and the charge-sheet is also filed.        As such, further

incarceration of the Applicant is not warranted.     Hence, prayed to

allow the Application.



4.    Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for

Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the Application submitting

that the offence is serious in nature. There is substantial evidence

on record indicating complicity of the present Applicant in the

offence.   An apprehension is expressed that if the Applicant is

enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the

prosecution evidence. As such, prayed to reject the Application.



5.    Upon considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal

of the material on record, including charge-sheet, it is evident that

the alleged incident is reported on 08.09.2025. Perusal of the record

indicates that the victim is minor bearly of age of 12 years and was

not of consenting age for sexual relation. Nevertheless, the applicant’s

active participation in the offence is prima facie evident from the

statement of victim. The record indicates a specific role wherein the
                                 -4-
                                                         ba2346.25.odt

applicant physically lifted the victim, thereby facilitating the other

accused in committing the sexual assault.



6.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP through CBI

vs. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, has held that the Court

must evaluate the prima facie evidence showing the Applicant’s

involvement. In such evidence is credible and supports the

accusation, bail may be refused. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in

case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC

598 has held that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be

exercised whimsically, especially in heinous offences.



7.          The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528],

while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious

offences, has observed as under :



        “11.    The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
        well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
        discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
        course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
        examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
        the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
        need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
        concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
                                  -5-
                                                          ba2346.25.odt

        the accused is charged of having committed a serious
        offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer
        from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
        court granting bail to consider among other circumstances,
        the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

              (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
        punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
        supporting evidence.

             (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
        witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

           (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
        charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
        and Puran v. Rambilas.)


8.          The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs.

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the

principle that bail can be refused when the material produced by

prosecution establishes a clear prima facie case. The Court should

not conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the

available evidence links the accused to the alleged offence.



9.          Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21], has held

that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence showing the

applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible and supports the
                                   -6-
                                                         ba2346.25.odt

accusations, bail may be refused. As stated earlier, the prosecution

has collected overwhelming evidence against the present applicant.



10.         Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pralhad

Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280], held that on

satisfaction of prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the

accused, the bail can be denied.



11.         Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram Govind

Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598], has held that a

judicial discretion in granting bail must not be exercised whimsically,

especially in heinous offences.



12.         The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010)14 SCC 496], has held that the

mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind, and

outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable

ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and possibility of justice

being thwarted.
                                  -7-
                                                            ba2346.25.odt

13.         In the present case, the prosecution's case is primarily

based upon the testimony of a child victim. The learned counsel for

the applicant submits that, in light of the affidavit presented by the

victim’s   father,   the   applicant's   request   for     bail   warrants

consideration. However, it is well-settled law that evaluating the

credibility and reliability of a witness falls within the exclusive

domain of the Trial Court. The mere filing of an affidavit does not,

ipso facto, entitle the applicant to claim bail as a matter of right. The

premature evaluation of such material would result in conducting a

mini-trial, which is impermissible at the stage of bail.



14.         In the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. [(2016)15

SCC 422], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that while considering a

bail application, the heinous nature of the crime warrants greater

caution. Furthermore, the Courts are not expected to determine

whether the evidence as a whole establishes the guilt of the accused

beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the Court must only reach a

prima facie satisfaction in support of the charges at this stage.



15.         The testimony of the victim, which remained consistent

in the statement recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS
                                 -8-
                                                         ba2346.25.odt

(corresponding Section 161 of the CrPC), is in itself sufficient to

constitute a prima facie case against the applicant. In the case of

State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash [(1990) 1 SCC 550], the

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a victim of sexual assault is not an

accomplice to the crime but is a victim whose testimony does not

require corroboration.



16.         In the present case, the victim’s statement is prima facie

relevant and consistent regarding the role of the applicant. The

evidence indicates that the applicant accompanied and facilitated the

other co-accused in the commission of heinous offence. As such, the

consistent testimony is prima facie sufficient to establish the

applicant's involvement. Consequently, the request of the applicant

for bail does not warrant consideration.



17.         The gravity of the alleged offence is exceptionally severe,

as the charges carry stringent penalties, including life imprisonment

for the remainder of the convict's natural life or the death penalty. In

the present case, the victim is a 13-year-old child, whereas the

applicant is 25 years old. This significant age disparity underscores
                                     -9-
                                                         ba2346.25.odt

the severity of the alleged act and raises serious concerns regarding

the exploitation and abuse of a minor.



18.         The comparative ages of the victim and the accused are

relevant considerations when assessing the gravity of an offence and

deciding a bail application. A greater age gap between the victim and

the accused indicates a more heinous nature of the crime,

necessitating a more stringent approach by the Court at the stage of

determining bail.



19.         The gravity of the offence alleged is rather severe and the

applicant   is   charged   carries    stringent   punishment   including

remained of the life of the convict natural life or the death penalty.

The victim in this case is child of 13 years whereas the applicant is a

man with age of 25 years. This wide disparity in age further indicates

the severity of the alleged act and eventual and rather serious

concern regarding the exploitation and abuse of child victim.

Comparative age of the victim and the accused is relevant

consideration while assessing the gravity of the offence and deciding

the bail application. The greater the gap between the victim and the
                                  - 10 -
                                                        ba2346.25.odt

accused, more serious and heinous nature of the offence entailing

most stringent approach of the Court at the stage of decision of bail.



20.         To secure bail, the applicant must establish the evidence

collected and intended to be presented by the prosecution fails to

establish a prima facie case of the applicant’s involvement in or

commission of the alleged offence. Since this necessary aspect has

not been satisfied by the applicant, the applicant is presently

disentitled to claim the bail.



21.         In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of

the considered opinion that no case is made out for the grant of bail

to the applicant at this stage. The allegations against the applicant

are grave and serious in nature. Furthermore, the victim has

consistently maintained her version regarding the specific role of the

applicant, thereby supporting the prosecution’s case. Accordingly, the

application stands rejected.



22.         The    High   Court    Legal    Services   Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad, to pay the fees to the learned Counsel appointed on

behalf of Respondent No. 2, as per rules.
                                    - 11 -
                                                           ba2346.25.odt



23.             It is clarified that the observations rendered hereinabove

are confined only to the determination of the present bail application.

The Trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently,

uninfluenced by any observations made herein.



                                              (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Omkar Joshi/-