Bombay High Court
LAKHAN BALU SHENDGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the delay in filing the complaint, lack of corroborative evidence, and indications of consensual interaction warranted the grant of bail, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Lakhan Balu Shendge, who was charged under Sections 64(1), 78, 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sandhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for alleged rape of a minor. The prosecution alleged that the applicant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim, threatened her, and repeatedly called her, while the defence argued that the complaint was filed six months after the incident and was motivated by a family dispute, suggesting a consensual relationship. The court noted the absence of call‑detail records, the simultaneous filing of an NC complaint by the applicant’s father, and the lack of clear evidence of force, concluding that the delay and surrounding circumstances raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations. It also considered the applicant’s two‑year pre‑trial detention and the hardship it caused. Weighing the risk of witness tampering against the evidentiary gaps, the court decided that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. The order directed the applicant to furnish a bail bond of Rs.50,000, report periodically to the police, refrain from entering Mumbai except for attendance, and not to influence witnesses. The bail application was therefore disposed in favour of the applicant.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under POCSO and BNS statutes given the delay in filing the complaint.
- Whether the alleged consensual nature of the relationship and lack of corroborative evidence justify release on bail.
- Whether there is a substantial risk of the accused tampering with witnesses that warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sandhita, 2023 — s. 351(3), 352, 64(1), 78
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- consent
- witness tampering
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sandhita
Judgment
HEMANT H.C. SHIV 906-BA-2515-2025.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
HEMANT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.09.28 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2515 OF 2025
15:59:05 +0300
Lakhan Balu Shendge …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Ganesh Gupta, through VC with Ritik Gupta, Sahil Ghorpade,
Shivkumar Singh Bias for the Applicant.
Ms. K. T. Hiwrale, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Gulab Yadav, Advocate appointed for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present application seeks release of the applicant on bail in
connection with FIR bearing Cr. No.723 of 2024, registered with
Powai police station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under
Sections 64(1), 78, 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sandhita,
2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”) on the report dated 26 th
August 2024, filed against the applicant by the First Informant
(victim).
3. The prosecution case is that, the victim and the applicant
have been residing in the same chawl. Therefore, they got
acquainted with each other about 1 year prior to the lodging of the
report. Intermittently they used to talk with each other. It is alleged
that 6 months prior to the filing of the report, the applicant called
the victim at his place making a gesture. Hence, the victim went
there. The two then were chatting with each other. However, after
Page 1 of 5
H.C. SHIV 906-BA-2515-2025.DOC
some time, the applicant closed the door of his room and,
committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim against her
will. Thereafter, the applicant threaten her that, if she disclosed
about the rape to her family, he would kill her. It is alleged that
about 4 days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the father of the victim
had given her a mobile phone. At that time, the applicant had saved
his number in her mobile phone.
It is alleged that, on 25th August 2024, when the applicant
called the victim on her mobile phone and asked her whether she
would accompany him to go out for a wander, she refused.
Therefore, he abused her. Further, the applicant was continuously
calling on her mobile phone and insisting her to meet him.
Therefore, the victim complained to her sister. In turn, the cousin of
the victim went to the applicant’s place and confronted the
applicant with the victim. This led to a dispute between the victim’s
cousin and the father of the applicant. The victim then filed the
Report, which led to registration of the present crime, arrest of the
applicant and filing of charge-sheet. The trial Court declined to
release the applicant on bail.
4. Mr.Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that,
on the same day, the father of the applicant had lodged N.C.
complaint against the family of the victim on account of the said
dispute. Therefore, the victim filed the present Report to take a
revenge. There is 6 months delay in filing the said Report. This fact
also indicate that the Report is false and out of vengeance.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Ms. Hiwrale, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and
Mr.Yadav, learned Advocate appointed for the victim have opposed
the application. They have submitted that, in the report the victim
Page 2 of 5
H.C. SHIV 906-BA-2515-2025.DOC
has categorically stated that she was raped by the applicant as
above. The said narration is supported with the medical report. This
has made out a prima facie case against the applicant. The parties
are residing in the same vicinity. If the applicant is released on bail,
he is likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses to prevent them
from deposing against him. Therefore, the bail may be refused.
6. I have considered these submissions. The victim was allegedly
raped about 6 months prior to filing of the Report, but, the threat to
kill her by the applicant prevented her from disclosing the said
incident to her family. However, it is important to note that since
the victim was threatened by the applicant as above, it was highly
improbable that she would go to him carrying her mobile phone.
Yet, it is not explained in the Report as to why she provided her
mobile number to the applicant and allowed him to save his mobile
number in her mobile phone. When and where the exchange of the
mobile numbers occurred, is also not stated in the Report. No
mobile phones CDRs are produced to substantiate the allegation
that the applicant was continuously calling the victim on her mobile
phone and insisting her to meet him. The N.C. complaint was filed
by the father of the applicant at 15:30 hours and the Report was
filed by the victim is at 16:00 hours, on the same day.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the delay in
the Report and the conduct of the parties, it appears that, the
alleged physical relationship was consensual in nature. Thereafter,
the victim and the applicant were in contact with each other on
mobile phone. However, when said fact revealed to their families, it
led to the dispute and filing of complaint against each-other. No
doubt, consent on the part of the minor victim is immaterial,
however, it cannot be ignored that there was no force on the part of
Page 3 of 5
H.C. SHIV 906-BA-2515-2025.DOC
the applicant. Needless to state that the applicant is in jail for last
two years. He is young. The trial has not advanced. Therefor, the
detention of the applicant must be cauing him great hardship,
which, in the facts of the case, appears punitive.
7. As a result, the applicant is entitled for bail. Hence, Order :-
(i) The applicant – Lakhan Balu Shendge be released on
bail in aforesaid FIR registered with Powai police station,
Mumbai on his executing 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 Powai police
station, Mumbai on 1st day of a month every three month,
between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall not enter Mumbai till the
conclusion of the trial, except to mark his attendance at
Powai police station, Mumbai and to attend the trial in the
aforesaid crime.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses 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
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
Page 4 of 5
H.C. SHIV 906-BA-2515-2025.DOC
(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 out come of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.