Bombay High Court
RAKESH RAMESH KHATRIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted subject to a personal bond, sureties and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Summary
Rakesh Ramesh Khatri was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor and impregnating her. The applicant contended that the victim was over fifteen years old at the time and that there was a consensual relationship, while the prosecution argued that the victim was a minor, the assault was under a false promise of marriage, and DNA evidence linked the applicant to the fetus, raising a risk of absconding or witness tampering. The court noted that the victim was fifteen years and eight months old, the FIR was delayed, and the applicant had been in custody for more than one year and seven months with no trial progress. Considering these facts, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties, imposing conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to attend police as required. The trial court was directed to continue the trial on its merits without being influenced by this order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape and POCSO offences where the victim is above fifteen years but below eighteen years of age
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the length of custodial detention justify the grant of bail
- Whether the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence warrants denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(2)(n), 376(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- minor
- DNA evidence
- custodial delay
- surety
- trial
Judgment
24-BA-2433-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2433 OF 2025
Rakesh Ramesh Khatri … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
Digitally signed ____________________________________________________________
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.20 Mr.Someshwar K. Pawale a/w Mr.Harsh Kashyap, Mr.Aniket Borude, for
14:34:40 +0530
the Applicant.
Mr.M.G. Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Vikram Phatate, for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
P.C. :
. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No.865 of 2024 registered with Hinjawadi Police Station, Pune,
for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 4,5(l), 5(j)(ii)
and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(‘POCSO’ for short).
2. It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant sexually assaulted
the First Informant who was a minor and impregnated her.
Page 1 of 3
24-BA-2433-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
there was love affair between the Applicant and First Informant, who
was more than 15 years old at the time of the incident. The Applicant is
behind bars for more than one year and seven months. The Applicant
has no antecedents. There is no progress in trial, and requested to allow
the Application.
4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel
for Respondent No.2 that the Applicant sexually assaulted the First
Informant on the pretext of false promise of marriage and impregnated
her. The Applicant was aware about the age of the victim. The
Applicant is resident of Nepal. The DNA report of the fetus matches
with the Applicant. If the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or
threaten First Informant and prosecution witnesses, and requested to
reject the Application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record.
6. At the time of the incident, victim was more than fifteen
years and eight months old. There is delay in lodging FIR. The FIR
was lodged, when the Applicant refused to marry with the First
Page 2 of 3
24-BA-2433-2025.doc
N.S.Kamble
Informant.
7. Considering these facts as well as the Applicant is behind
bars more than one year and seven months. There is no progress in
trial, and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applicant-Rakesh Ramesh Khatri, be released
on bail in Crime No.865 of 2024 registered with
Hinjawadi Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own
merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when required.
(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…