Bombay High Court
VISHAL RAMESH MADERIYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on the condition of a personal bond and compliance with stipulated conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Vishal Ramesh Maderiya, sought bail for offences under Sections 376, 376(D), 376(2)(n), 343 and 506 IPC relating to an alleged rape and intimidation of a married woman. The victim claimed a consensual relationship with the applicant, which turned hostile when he refused to marry her, leading to allegations that he facilitated the rape by two co‑accused who are now absconding. The applicant argued that the relationship was consensual, the charges were fabricated, and there was no material against him in the charge‑sheet, citing the victim’s husband’s statement. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offences, the absconding co‑accused, and the likelihood of a swift trial. After considering the statements indicating consent and the lack of substantive evidence, the Court found the bail application prima facie justified and granted bail with strict conditions. The order was made on a prima facie basis, leaving the trial judge to decide the merits independently.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail in a case involving alleged rape, criminal intimidation and assault.
- Whether the alleged consensual relationship and the victim’s marital status negate the seriousness of the offences.
- The impact of the two co‑accused being absconding on the bail decision.
- Whether the pending trial and number of witnesses justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 343, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(D), 506
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- sexual assault
- consent
- absconding accused
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
Judgment
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2904 OF 2025
Vishal Ramesh Maderiya ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Navkar Jain a/w Abhinav Dubey, for the Applicant.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the State-Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sangramsinh Parab, for Respondent No.2 (appointed
Advocate).
API – Prakash Lahane, Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai, is
present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 17th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with C.R. No.322 of 2024 dated 30 th March 2024 registered
with Dahisar Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 376 (D), 376(2)(n), 343 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
2. There are in all three accused. Two are absconding and
the Applicant is Accused No.1.
Page 1 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
3. As discerned from the statement of the
Complainant/victim in the FIR, it appears that the victim was
married to one Karansingh Rajput on 15th November 2021.
After the marriage, she started residing with her husband in
her matrimonial home at Gujarat. Thereafter, there was some
discord between herself and her husband and in August 2023,
she returned to her parents’ house in Mumbai. She started a
job in November 2023 in a factory at Mumbai. She met the
Applicant while in Mumbai. It is alleged that there was a
consensual relationship between the parties as the Applicant
promised the victim that he will marry her. They started
interacting with each other on mobile phone and also went for
outings. There was a physical relationship between them.
Thereafter, it is alleged by the victim that in November 2023,
the Applicant invited her to his friend’s room and forcefully
facilitated the co-accused i.e. his friends, one Ravi Yadav and
Mannu Yadav to also sexually assault her. The Applicant
closed the door of the room from outside and the co-accused,
Ravi Yadav and Mannu Yadav raped her. The said Ravi Yadav
Page 2 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
and Mannu Yadav are absconding. She returned home
traumatized, however, she did not inform anybody as she was
scared and threatened by the Applicant. Ultimately, on 25 th
March 2024, the Applicant conveyed his refusal to marry her
and hence, she filed the complaint pursuant to which, the FIR
was registered.
4. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before
the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai. However, by order dated
12th August 2024, the said application was rejected. Hence,
the Applicant is before this Court seeking the relief as prayed.
5. Mr. Navkar Jain, learned counsel for the Applicant,
submitted that the Applicant is in custody from 30th March
2024 and there is no material against him in the charge-sheet.
In fact, he has pointed to a statement of the victim’s husband
namely, Karansingh Rajput, recorded by the police.
Karansingh Rajput has specifically stated that he was aware of
their relationship as his wife herself had confided in him
Page 3 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
regarding the same. She had also told him that she wanted to
leave him as the Applicant has assured her that he will marry
her. She, however, on 27th March 2024, complained to her
husband that the Applicant has refused to marry her and now,
she wanted to file a complaint against him.
6. Mr. Jain also submitted that the entire relationship was
consensual and the Applicant is unable to marry her since she
herself was married. As regard the other allegation regarding
facilitating the sexual assault on the victim by the co-accused,
Mr. Jain submits that this is a false allegation and made only
because the victim was upset that the Applicant refused to
marry her. He thus submits that the case against the Applicant
is false and fabricated and the Applicant be released on bail.
7. Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP, opposed the Bail
Application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. She
has contended that the charges are framed and the trial is
likely to commence soon. She also submits that there are only
10 witnesses that the prosecution intends to examine and
Page 4 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
considering that the trial is likely to conclude in a short time,
the Bail Application be rejected.
8. Mr. Sangramsinh Parab, learned counsel appointed to
represent Respondent No.2, supports the arguments of Ms.
Bajoria. He has tendered on record decision of the Karnataka
High Court in the matter of Syed Parveez Mushraff v. State of
Karnataka by Mahadevapura P. S. Bangalore – 560048
represented by Spp and Another1. He submits that this is a
serious offence and the co-accused, who have sexually
assaulted her, are absconding. In these circumstances, he also
prays that the Bail Application be rejected.
9. I have heard leaned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record with their assistance.
10. The statement of the Complainant/victim which resulted
in the registration of the FIR, clearly indicates that she being
an adult, on her own, had established the relationship with
1 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19567
Page 5 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
the Applicant. There was a discord in her marriage and hence,
she had returned to Mumbai from Gujarat. She met the
Applicant while going to work in Mumbai and she had never
resisted any physical relationship with the Applicant. She,
however, has alleged that the Applicant had obtained her
consent for the relationship only on the assurance of marrying
her. However, the record indicates that the victim herself was
married and hence, the Applicant is not in a position to marry
her without the Complainant/victim getting a divorce from
her husband.
11. Secondly, the statement of the husband recorded by the
police clearly indicates that the Complainant/victim had
communicated her decision to leave him and continue her
liaison with the present Applicant. She had also informed her
husband that she willingly had a sexual relationship with the
Applicant and the Applicant had promised to marry her.
Ultimately, she told him that the Applicant has now refused to
marry her and therefore, she has lodged the complaint.
Page 6 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
12. It is clear from the aforesaid two statements i.e. one of
the Complainant and her husband that the relationship was
consensual and only when the Applicant refused to marry her,
the complaint has been registered. Be that as it may, the
Complainant/victim herself is married and at this juncture,
the Applicant is unable to act on his promise in any case. The
Applicant is in custody from 30th March 2024 and till date,
only charges are framed. It is quite clear that the trial is bound
to take some time to conclude and the incarceration of the
Applicant is quite lengthy.
13. Considering the aforesaid, I am inclined to enlarge the
Applicant on bail and it is ordered as under:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR
Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties
in the like amount;
Page 7 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on
each and every date as directed, till the conclusion of the trial,
save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance
by orders of the Trial Court.
iii) The Applicant will not enter the territorial jurisdiction of
Dahisar Police Station, till the conclusion of the Trial;
iv) If the Applicant holds a passport, he shall deposit the
same with the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without permission
of the trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence
or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence
and mobile contact number immediately after being released
and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
Page 8 of 9
th
17 February 2026
903-BA-2904-2025.DOC
time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the
Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the
trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
14. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
15. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial
Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by
the observations made herein.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Page 9 of 9
th
17 February 2026
Checking your session…