Bombay High Court
BANDU ALIAS JAYSINGH SHRIMANT WAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The court held that, given the unexplained delay in the FIR, the late inclusion of the applicant in the investigation, and the completion of the charge‑sheet, bail should be granted with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Bandu alias Jaysingh Shrimant Ware, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(k) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, arising from an alleged forced sexual intercourse on a speech‑ and hearing‑impaired woman. The FIR was lodged six to seven months after the alleged incident, and the applicant was named only later through a supplementary statement, raising concerns of false implication. The State opposed bail, citing the heinous nature of the crime and risk of evidence tampering. The Court noted the unexplained delay, the fact that the investigation was complete and a charge‑sheet filed, and found no justification for continued pre‑trial detention. It therefore granted bail with stringent conditions to safeguard the trial process.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the alleged sexual assault offences.
- Whether the six‑to‑seven‑month delay in filing the FIR and the late naming of the applicant create sufficient doubt to warrant bail.
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64(2)(i), 64(2)(k)
- Right of Persons with Disabilities Act — s. 92
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- rights of disabled persons
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:1796
934 BA No.2437.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2437 OF 2025
BANDU ALIAS JAYSINGH SHRIMANT WARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Satej S. Jadhav i/b Mr. Atharva D.
Khedkar
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. P. Dawalkar
Advocate for Applicant in Cri.Appln. : Mr. S. R. Andhale
***
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 196 OF 2026
IN BA/2437/2025
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 17th January, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 21.06.2025 bearing Crime
No. 685 of 2025 registered with Pathardi Police Station, Dist.
Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(i)
and 64(2)(k) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act.
2. The complaint came to be lodged with an assertion that
the complainant is the husband of the victim, who is his second
934 BA No.2437.2025
-2-
wife and is speech and hearing impaired. Due to a medical
operation undergone by the complainant in December 2021, the
informant has been physically incapable of sexual intercourse.
Between April and May 2025 (approximately 6 to 7 months prior to
the FIR). Unknown assailant entered the agricultural land and
committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim. The incident
came to light around October 2025, when the complainant noticed
the victim’s enlarged abdomen. Upon questioning, the victim
communicated the assault through signs and gestures. Subsequent
medical examination at Beed confirmed the victim was 25 weeks
pregnant. Consequently, the complainant lodged a complaint
against the unidentified perpetrator, leading to the registration of
the FIR.
3. It is further alleged that during the course of
investigation, the supplementary statement of complainant was
recorded implicating the applicant as the perpetrator.
Consequently, the applicant was arrested on 17.09.2025 and
remained in Police Custody Remand until 23.09.2025. He was
subsequently transferred to magisterial custody and has remained
incarcerated since that date.
934 BA No.2437.2025
-3-
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is an innocent person and has not committed the alleged
offence. There is a significant delay of approximately 6 to 7 months
from the date of the alleged incident (April 2025) to the
registration of the FIR. The naming of the applicant duing the
course of investigation, after unexplained silence, indicates
possibility of false implication. The investigation is complete and
the charge-sheet is filed. The further incarceration of the applicant
is unjustified. As such, it is prayed that the application may be
allowed.
5. The learned APP and learned counsel for respondent
No. 3 have vehemently opposed the application, submitting that
the applicant has committed a heinous crime of forceful sexual
intercourse under Section 64 of the BNS. The gravity of the
offence, involving the violation of a woman's modesty, disentitles
the applicant from claiming the bail. If the applicant is enlarged on
bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution
evidence. As such, prayed to reject the application.
6. Considering the submissions of both the sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, there
934 BA No.2437.2025
-4-
is a significant and unexplained delay of approximately six to seven
months in registering the FIR. While the victim’s speech and
hearing impairments are noted, the prosecution has failed to
provide a prima facie justification for the incident, allegedly
occurred in April 2025, was only reported in October 2025 once the
pregnancy became apparent. This delay prima facie creates a
substantial lacuna in the narrative, raising the possibility of over-
implication.
7. Furthermore, the fact that the FIR was initially
registered against an unknown person and the applicant was only
named much later via a supplementary statement on 17.09.2025,
prima facie weakens the case for continued pretrial detention.
8. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the investigation of
the case is complete and the charge-sheet is also filed. Nothing
remains to be recovered at the instance of applicant. Thus, no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the
bar.
9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant's right to liberty needs to be upheld by
934 BA No.2437.2025
-5-
imposing stringent conditions. The learned APP's apprehension
about tampering with the prosecution evidence can be adequately
taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. In that view of the
matter, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
10. Hence, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Bandu @ Jaysingh shrimant Ware be
released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local
solvent sureties in the like amount, in connection with
Crime No. 685 of 2025 registered with Pathardi Police
Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(k) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 92 of the Right of
Persons with Disabilities Act, on the following
conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicant shall not enter into the village
Bhalgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar, till
conclusion of trial.
(c) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
934 BA No.2437.2025
-6-
evidence, in any manner.
(d) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(e) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(IV) Resultantly, the criminal application also stands
disposed of.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…