Bombay High Court
RAMESH KALIYAN ARJUNversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered the bail application of Ramesh Kaliyan Arjun, a 21‑year‑old accused of offences under Sections 64(m) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for alleged sexual relations with a 15‑year‑old girl. The prosecution argued that the relationship was non‑consensual, citing the victim’s minority and pregnancy, while the defence contended that the statements in the FIR, police record and medical report indicated a consensual relationship without force or violence. The mother of the victim filed an affidavit stating that the parties intended to marry after the girl reaches majority. The Court examined the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, held that it is not absolute, and relied on precedents that consider a minor’s consent as a mitigating factor where no violence is shown. Finding the allegations prima facie indicative of consent and noting the applicant’s young age and lack of antecedents, the Court granted bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita when the alleged sexual relationship with a minor is claimed to be consensual.
- Whether the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is absolute in the bail stage.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64(2)(m), 64(m)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 29, 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent of minor
- statutory presumption
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- sexual offences
- age of consent
- mitigating circumstances
- juvenile offender
Judgment
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3278 OF 2026
Ramesh Kaliyan Arjun .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Yash Agarwal a/w. Mr. Abhishek Jare and Ms. Disha Rathod,
Advocates i/by Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Srushti More, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.V. Waghmare, PSI Dehu Road Police Station, Pune present.
......…........…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 25, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. More,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. Present Application seeks enlargement on bail of the
Applicant, who is 21 years old. First Informant is the mother of
Respondent No.2 – prosecutrix. Applicant is indicted in C.R. No.361 of
2025 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 64(m) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 4 and 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
‘POCSO Act’).
1 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
3. Applicant was arrested on 11.10.2025. Investigation has
been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix was 15
years old and Applicant was 21 years old at the time of alleged
incident/s. Tenure of incident/s is alleged to be from May 2025 to
October 2025. FIR is filed on 06.10.2025. Applicant is incarcerated
since 11.10.2025 pending trial.
4. Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Applicant would vehemently submit that even on the basis of the
prosecution case, it would prima facie prove that the relationship
between Applicant and prosecutrix was consensual in nature and there
was no element of force or abuse whatsoever or to that extent coercion
or duress exercised upon the prosecutrix by Applicant.
5. He would submit that statements made in the First
Information Report (FIR), statements recorded by the prosecution and
statements recorded in medical evidence/report prima facie suggest
consensual relationship between both the parties. He would submit
that confession of the prosecutrix herself in her own statements
recorded by the prosecution without there being any element of deceit
or violence, entitle the Applicant to be enlarged on bail in the facts of
the present case. He would submit that Applicant has no antecedents
and therefore being a young offender should be released on bail by this
Court.
2 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
6. PER CONTRA, Ms. Talhar, learned APP for the State would
vehemently oppose the Bail Application and contend that considering
the age of the prosecutrix and she having been impregnated by the
Applicant clearly makes out a case and offence within the meaning of
POCSO Act and therefore the ground of consensual relationship should
be rejected.
7. She would submit that the Applicant has taken undue
advantage of the minor age of the prosecutrix/victim and lured her
into physical relationship despite being well aware of the fact that she
was a minor and therefore not having crossed the age of understanding
has committed the offence knowingly. She would submit that at the
prima facie stage complicity of the Applicant has been proved to have
indulged in the overt acts knowingly and therefore urge the Court that
the Application be dismissed and trial be expedited since there is every
possibility that the Applicant will not only influence the witnesses, but
will also harass and pressurize the prosecutrix and her family
members.
8. Ms. More, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, First
Informant has however filed Affidavit dated 25.08.2026 in support of
the present Application to which I will advert hereinafter in my
observations.
3 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
9. I have heard the submissions made by both the sides and
perused the record placed before me.
10. The FIR is appended at page No.17 of the Application. It is
dated 06.10.2025. Statement of the First Informant/mother is
appended at page No.13 whereas statement of the prosecutrix is
appended at page No.15 of the Application. It states that the
prosecutrix befriended the Applicant in the month of May 2025 and
after he confessed his love for the prosecutrix by giving his details, the
prosecutrix further states that she reciprocated his advances and
proposal affirmatively after which they both went to Nigdi near Pune
on his motorcycle for outing on 4 different occasions. The prosecutrix
specifically states that she herself gave her consent to the proposal
advanced and made by the Applicant after which they both started
going out together.
11. Prosecutrix next states that in the last week of May,
Applicant took her to his house situated in M.B. Camp, Dehu Road,
Pune when no one was present at home, confessed his love for her and
both of them indulged in physical relationship. Though insofar as this
incident is concerned, prosecutrix states that it was committed against
her consent, but she immediately states that thereafter on three
occasions she and Applicant visited the same house and indulged in
physical relationship.
4 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
12. In the Medico-Legal Examination Report which is narrated
by the prosecutrix to Sassoon General Hospital on 07.10.2025, copy of
which is appended at page No.39 onwards, prosecutrix has recorded
her statement wherein she states that she befriended the Applicant on
her daily route to Shankar Mandir near Mahatma Gandhi School and
met him at a park near her school. She has stated that they both have
been in a relationship since then. What is important is that the
prosecutrix herself states that Applicant had consensual physical
relationship with her at his house on 05.06.2025 followed by multiple
similar episodes thereafter. That apart, Medico-Legal Examination
Report completely rules out any violence or abuse and physical injury
altogether.
13. After perusing the aforesaid statements, though this Court is
completely conscious of the fact that the prosecutrix was 15 years old,
but such statements given by her to the prosecution and during her
Medico-Legal Examination prima facie show that she was completely
aware of the repeated acts committed by the Applicant and the
prosecutrix and more importantly what the result of such acts would
ultimately be.
14. Therefore even according to the prosecutrix’s own statement
wherein she has admitted to being in a consensual relationship, this
Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Applicant was 21
5 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
years old while considering the present Application for grant of bail.
Applicant has been incarcerated since 11.10.2025.
15. What is intriguing is that on the date of hearing of the
present Bail Application, Respondent No.2 – the First Informant has
filed an Affidavit dated 25.08.2026 wherein she has stated that
Applicant and First Informant’s family have decided to settle the issue
as the Applicant has undertaken to marry the prosecutrix once she
attains the age of majority. In the said Affidavit, First Informant has
stated that the present case was a case of love affair between the
victim and Applicant and there is no coercion, threat, undue influence
or pressure of any kind either from the Applicant or his family on the
First Informant and the prosecutrix.
16. Having considered the above and the fact that admittedly
there was a consensual relationship between the Applicant and
prosecutrix the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.
17. In this regard, assistance is drawn from the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras1
wherein the Court in paragraph No.2 has held thus:-
“2. Where a minor girl alleged to be taken away by the
accused person, had left her father's protection knowing
and having capacity to know the full import of what she
was doing and voluntarily joined the accused, it could not
be said that the accused had taken her away from the
keeping of her lawful guardian within the meaning of
1 AIR 1965 942
6 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
section 361 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short).
Something more had to be done in a case of that kind, such
as an inducement held out by the accused person or an
active participation by him in the formation of the
intention either immediately prior to the minor leaving her
father protection or at some earlier stage.”
18. Though the above referred case was decided well before the
POCSO Act was enacted, this Court is well conscious of the
presumption ingrained in Section 29 of the said Act and that argument
on prosecutrix’s consent is irrelevant but prima facie if the statements
of prosecutrix which are recorded are read, it is clearly borne out that
she has been consenting to the actions which is gathered from the
record of the case.
19. In the facts of the present case, attention is drawn to the
decision of this Court (Coram: Mridula Bhatkar, J.) in the case of Sunil
Mahadev Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra2 to contend that consensus
of the prosecutrix who is below the age of 18 years is a mitigating
circumstance for a Court to consider. In furtherance to the above,
Court has laid down certain specific guidelines after taking into
consideration relevant cases as also the ethos and development of the
age of the young offenders in the Indian Society in general. Court in
paragraph Nos.8, 9,11 and 12 has laid down certain principles which I
find it apt to be reproduced hereinbelow for consideration of bail in
such Applications. Paragraph Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 read thus:-
2 Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015, decided on 03.08.2015.
7 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
“8. It is to be noted that the case of S. Varadarajan was
decided in the year 1967 when the women were not enjoying
the freedom which today the women have. Albeit the Hon'ble
Supreme Court then has taken a pragmatic view and has
acquitted Varadarajan. Now we come across such cases
everyday. If a girl is a minor between the age group of 15 to 18
years and if it can be safely inferred that her consent was
obvious, then it is a mitigating circumstance. Some trial Courts
dealing with such Bail Applications, especially after Nirbhaya
case, started taking a strict approach and the accused are denied
the bail only on the ground that the prosecutrix being minor
below 18 years, her consent is immaterial, therefore, in the case
of rape on such minor, no bail can be granted. This is a matter
of concern.
9. In view of the increasing offences against the women
especially of rape, the legislature and judiciary both found it
obligatory to deal these offences with severe punishment and
women can be protected if the laws are made rigorous.
Therefore, report of Justice Verma Committee was accepted and
necessary and significant amendments were made in these two
sections. A wrong doer is to be punished, guilty is to be
convicted. However, at the stage of bail, the Court has to
consider prima facie under what circumstances the offence is
committed by the accused. In the Criminal law, the Court
cannot ignore the intention or motive behind the act and that is
an important factor in the commission of offence so also to
decide the quantum of sentence at the end of trial, so in the case
of bail.
10. ...
11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex related issues
and lot of material is also available to them to know the sexual
relationship between a man and a woman. Because of their
impressionable age, girls and boys both may tend to get
provoked and there can be a curious and very compelling
demand of the body to get into such kind of relationship. Sexual
urge differs from person to person and there cannot be any
mathematical formula in respect of sexual behavioral pattern of
teenagers, as biologically whenever the child turns into puberty,
the child starts understanding his or her sexual needs. The
nature of response depends on the upbringing, peer pressure,
how civilized the environment is etc. Sex requires proper
physical and emotional preparation, as it results in many
physical and emotional consequences. This is all considered as a
sexual maturation. Therefore, some sects with view to regularize
sexual behaviour of the community have acknowledged this
biological factor and therefore, the early age marriages are
performed in some religions or communities. Taking into
consideration this social and biological factors, the law makers
have considered the age of 15 as a age of consent when the
marriage is performed. Taking into consideration this
background, the trial Judge has to pass an order of bail in such
cases.
8 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
12. The overall considerations while deciding such
applications can be summed up as -
When a boy and a minor girl are in love with each other and
chose to live together without consent of their parents, then the
following factors are to be considered:
(i) What is the age of the prosecutrix, who is minor.
(ii) Whether the act is violent or not.
(iii) Whether there are antecedents or not.
(iv) Whether the offender is capable of repeating the Act or not.
(v) Whether there is likelihood of threats or intimidation, if at all
the boy is released.
(vi)Whether any chance of tampering with the material witnesses
when their statements are recorded.
(vii) It is also to be taken into account in such cases that a boy in
his early 20's deserves to get employment and to plan, stabilize
and secure his future.”
20. Next the decision of this Court (Coram: Sandeep K.
Shinde, J.) in the case of Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav Vs. The State of
Maharashtra3 is also relevant in the facts of the present case. Relevant
paragraph No.4 is reproduced below for reference and reads thus:-
“4. …..The conduct of the victim is indicative of the fact that
she had left the home of her parents by her own will and that
she had surrendered to the physical desires of the applicant out
of her love and affection for him. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the applicant had promised to marry her.
Additionally, it is also not a case where under the misconception
of the fact, she had served herself to the desire of the applicant
for physical relations. No doubt, that the applicant, under the
preview of POCSO Act, is a minor, however, the facts of the
present case indicate that she had sufficient knowledge and
capacity to know full import of what she was doing and had
only thereafter voluntarily joined the complainant (applicant).”
21. There is no doubt that presumption under Section 29 exists
but it is not an absolute presumption. This Court is of the opinion that
presumption would come into play only when prosecution is able to
3 Criminal Bail Application No.2632 of 2019 decided on 09.01.2020
9 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
bring on record facts that would prima facie form the foundation for
the presumption. Otherwise, all that the prosecution would be required
to do is to raise some allegation against the accused person and claim
that the case projected by it is true. Court will have to be on guard to
see that application of presumption without adverting to the essential
facts shall not lead to injustice since we are at a prima facie stage and
trial has not even begun. The presumption under Section 29 of the
POCSO Act is not absolute. Attention in this regard is invited to the
decision of High Court of Kerala in the case of Joy Vs. State of Kerela
Represented through the Public Prosecutor4 in a similar case where age
of prosecutrix was below 18 years and a similar argument was made.
The relevant paragraph Nos.9 to 11 are reproduced below:-
“9. Mere delay in reporting the matter to the authorities
concerned, especially sexual assault on a minor girl, is
immaterial and it would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
However, in the instant case, it is not the delay alone that is
significant. The significant fact is that the complaint was given
to the authorities concerned only two weeks after the mother
received the lawyer notice from the petitioner claiming a huge
amount as professional fees. This raises suspicion on the
prosecution case against the petitioner. When the victim had
disclosed the matter to her mother in July, 2018, one would
have expected the mother to report the matter to the authorities
concerned much earlier than 22.09.2018. The fact that she
reported the matter only after receiving a lawyer notice from
the petitioner assumes significance.
10. This court is not oblivious to Section 29 of the Act which
contains a legislative mandate that the court shall presume
commission of the offences by the accused unless the contrary is
proved. Section 29 of the Act states that where a person is
prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit
any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special
Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted
or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless
4 2019 SCC OnLine 783.
10 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
the contrary is proved. The court shall take into consideration
the presumption under Section 29 of the Act while dealing with
an application for bail filed by a person who is accused of the
aforesaid offences under the Act (See State of Bihar v. Rajballav
Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : AIR 2017 SC 630).
11. However, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of
the Act does not mean that the prosecution version has to be
accepted as gospel truth in every case. The presumption does
not mean that the court cannot take into consideration the
special features of a particular case. Patent absurdities or
inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version
may lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the
prosecution case. The presumption would come into play only
when the prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would
form the foundation for the presumption. Otherwise, all that the
prosecution would be required to do is to raise some allegations
against the accused and to claim that the case projected by it is
true. The courts must be on guard to see that the application of
the presumption, without adverting to essential facts, shall not
lead to any injustice. The presumption under Section 29 of the
Act is not absolute. The statutory presumption would get
activated or triggered only if the prosecution proves the
essential basic facts. If the accused is able to create serious
doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case or the accused
brings on record materials which would render the prosecution
version highly improbable, the presumption would get
weakened. As held by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : AIR 2011
SC 312, frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. No
inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for
grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend
on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the
legislative intention.”
22. Considering Applicant’s age, if he is enlarged on bail the
Court is hopeful that Applicant’s family will undoubtedly do their duty
to make every effort and attempt to reform and aid the Applicant in
leading a reformed life while on bail rather than keep them in prison
and expose him to criminal outlook and life in prison. However on the
flip side, if a chance is given to Applicant because of his young age by
11 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful
and repent in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the
Court because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a
reformative result rather than being punitive in nature.
23. Undoubtedly the trial will determine the complicity of
Applicant in the offence. While considering Bail Application in such
facts, Court feels that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial
accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused
person is young so that the accused person gets an opportunity / or is
given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood
honorably from the perspective of social integration. This is a chance
which the Court must take considering the young age of accused
person. The age of Applicant is very young. If the Applicant is
incarcerated in prison further, there is every possibility that he might
lose faith in the institution and society at large and may tread the path
of criminality or would waste his life. Incarceration in prison
incidentally exposes many youth to abuse as is shown statistically.
24. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted
disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that
any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in
punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young
offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be
12 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders –
accused before committing such accused to further custody and give
such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society.
These observations are only in the view of the young age of the
Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an alternative to
incarceration so that the Applicant can become a good citizen.
25. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of
POCSO Act (special law) are concerned, it may be stated that the
provisions of this law are, though, stringent in nature, however it
would not deter the Court to grant or refuse bail in order to secure the
ends of justice more so when the trial has not commenced.
26. In so far as present case is concerned, it is prima facie borne
out from the record that prosecutrix was 15 years old whereas
Applicant was 21 years old, that she repeatedly went out with
Applicant on her own volition and indulged in physical relationship on
multiple occasions without ever intimating her parents that she was
going out with Applicant, that she has confessed her love relationship
with Applicant, that her own endorsement is that she was in love with
the Applicant and that there was no force or violence or deceit
practiced on her, are facts required to be considered. Facts of the
present case indicate that prosecutrix though not a major had sufficient
knowledge and capacity to know the full import of what she was doing
13 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
and had only thereafter voluntarily joined the Applicant on multiple
occasions.
27. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
finding, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Ramesh Kaliyan Arjun is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No.361 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty
Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Dehu Road Police Station, once every month, on the
first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall
attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
14 of 15
5.BA.3278.2026.doc
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of their current residential address and mobile
telephone number and shall forthwith inform the
Investigating Officer of any change in their residential
address or mobile telephone number, as and when such
change occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
28. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
29. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.26
14:23:43 +0530
15 of 15
Checking your session…