Bombay High Court

ROHIT DILIP LOKHANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 20 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Bail was granted to the accused with conditions.

Summary

Rohit Dilip Lokhande applied for bail in a case registered under IPC Section 376(1)(3) and POCSO Sections 4 and 6, alleging forced sexual intercourse with a 15‑year‑old girl who later became pregnant. The prosecution relied on a psychologist’s report stating the victim was repeatedly forced, while the police had not recorded a direct statement from the victim. The defence argued that no victim statement was on record, there was no evidence linking the accused to the pregnancy, and the victim’s mother expressed no objection to bail and even suggested a future marriage. The State highlighted the victim’s low IQ and the psychologist’s findings, urging denial of bail. The Court noted the accused was 18 years old, had no prior record, had been in custody for over two years, and considered the mother’s lack of objection. Balancing the factors, the Court granted bail with a set of strict conditions, including monthly police attendance and a prohibition on contacting the victim. The order clarified that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO in the absence of a recorded victim statement but with a psychologist’s report.
Whether the victim’s mother’s lack of objection and the accused’s age and clean record outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376(1)(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
rape
child sexual offence
POCSO
consent
minor
psychological report
mother's objection
conditions of bail

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
WAKLE
MANOJ 5-BA-2473-2026.DOC
WAKLE MANOJ
MANOJ JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
2026.09.01
20:09:32
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2473 OF 2026
Rohit Dilip Lokhande …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

Ms. Krishma Joshi a/w Adv. Swapnil Kshirsagar & Adv. Sangram
Jadhav i/by Adv. Vipul Dushing, for the Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Noorsaba Shaikh, for the Respondent No.2.
PSI – Praveen Ranadive (Pairavi Officer) Andheri Police Station,
present.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Cr.
No.197 of 2024 registered with Andheri Police Station, for the
offence punishable under Section 376(1)(3) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”), on the report
dated 05.04.2024 filed by Respondent No.2.

3. The prosecution case is that since three to four months prior
to the incident, the victim girl, then aged 15 years, used to reside
with her maternal grandmother. Respondent No.2, mother of the
victim used to reside at different place, but, she used to regularly
inquire about the victim. Meanwhile, the mother learnt that since
12.01.2024, the victim did not have the monthly cycle. Therefore,
she took her to a local doctor for medical treatment. On o3.04.2024,
pregnancy test revealed that the victim was pregnant. On inquiry,
she disclosed that from the last five to six months the applicant,

Page 1 of 4
MANOJ 5-BA-2473-2026.DOC

who was her classmate and residing in their neighbourhood, used to
call her to his room and commit forcibly sexual intercourse with
her. Therefore, the aforesaid offence came to be registered and the
applicant was arrested. On completion of investigation, police
submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court declined to release the
applicant on bail.

4. Ms. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
no statement of the victim has been recorded by police or learned
Magistrate to the effect that the applicant had committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her nor there is any evidence to link the
applicant with her pregnancy. Therefore, the applicant is innocent.
Additionally, she has submitted that Respondent No.2 has given her
no objection to release the applicant on bail.

5. In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP submitted that the victim
is not a normal child as her IQ level was below the normal level. The
applicant misused that mental condition of the victim and
committed rape on her. To buttress that, he has pointed out a
statement of the victim recorded by a psychologist. Therein, the
victim has stated that, the applicant used to forcibly rape her. He
therefore urged that bail be refused.

6. Ms. Shaikh, on instructions from Respondent No.2 submitted
that the later has no objection to release the applicant on bail. Even,
Respondent No.2, who was present during hearing of the
application, requested to release the applicant on bail stating that
the applicant and the victim knew each other and that they have
expressed their wish to continue their relationship. Respondent
No.2 further stated that upon the victim attaining majority, she has
no objection to get her married with the applicant if the victim is
ready to marry him.

Page 2 of 4
MANOJ 5-BA-2473-2026.DOC

7. I have considered theses submissions. Insofar as the
statement recorded by a psychologist Smt. Sakpal is concerned,
therein, the victim has stated that the applicant repeatedly
subjected her to forcible penetrative sexual assault. However, the
similar details are not stated in the report filed by Respondent No.2.

8. Ms. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
the applicant and the victim both were studying in night school as
they were slow learners. Till filing of the report, the victim never
complained to her mother or maternal grandmother that applicant
used to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, it
cannot be denied that the applicant and the victim were attracted to
each other and it led to their physical relationship.

9. However, the consent aspect in such matters is not
significant. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the applicant
was 18 years of age and he is in jail for last 2 years and 4 months.
He has no antecedents. The incarceration is affecting on his
psychology. Therefore and having regard to the no objection given
by Respondent No.2 and that she has no objection if the victim
marries with the applicant, I am inclined to allow the application.
Hence, following Order:-

(i) Applicant – Rohit Dilip Lokhande shall be released on
bail in connection with Cr.No.197 of 2024 registered with
Andheri Police Station, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Andheri
Police Station, on the 1st day of each calendar month between
12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial.

Page 3 of 4
MANOJ 5-BA-2473-2026.DOC

(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.

(v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.

(vi) The applicant shall not enter into the area where the
victim resides, till conclusion of the trial.

(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.

10. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…