RAKESH RAGHVENDRA DEVADIGAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

MANOJ                                                  903-BA-3500-2025.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3500 OF 2025
Rakesh Raghvendra Devadiga                            …Applicant
          V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       …Respondents

Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w Ms. Savvy Kolhekar & Adv. Juhi Kadu, for
the Applicant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Keral Mehta, for the Respondent No.2.
API – P.B. Bakale, Khadkpada Police Station, Kalyan, present.

                            CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :      25th 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.290 of 2025, registered with Khadakpada Police Station,
Thane City, for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 123, 308
(2), 308 (3) and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”), on the report dated 7 th April, 2025 filed by Respondent
No.2.

3.        Mr. Vagal, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
the narration in the report and the material on record including
the WhatsApp chats collected during the investigation and further
investigation clearly show that the relationship between the
parties was consensual in nature. The delay in filing the report
fortifies the said fact. No obscene video or photo is found in the
mobile phone of the applicant during the forensic examination.
There is no evidence that certain amount was given by the victim
to the applicant and that any threat was made to make public the
video of the victim. Till date, no final opinion is given by the
                                Page 1 of 4
MANOJ                                                    903-BA-3500-2025.DOC



medical officer as to whether the victim was sexually assaulted or
not. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against the applicant of
having committed the alleged offence. Additionally, he has
submitted that since the testimony of the victim is over, there is no
possibility of the applicant tampering with the material evidence.
Therefore, he urged to release the applicant on bail.

4.      In response, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP and Ms. Mehta,
learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-victim have submitted that
there is a prima facie case against the applicant that by
administering     some    stupefying        substance,   the   applicant
committed rape on the victim. They submitted that the applicant
had recorded the video of the said act. The applicant extorted
certain money from the victim by threatening that otherwise he
will make that video public. Therefore, there is a prima facie case
against the applicant of having committed a serious offence.

5.      I have considered these submissions in the light of the
material on record. The FIR, statement of witnesses and the
WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the victim show that,
in the year 2021, the applicant was working as a security guard in
the society where the victim has been residing. In the year 2022,
the victim gave Rs.30,000/- to the applicant, at his request, for his
sister’s medical treatment. Thereafter, the victim demanded her
money back, but, the applicant used to avoid to repay. After two
years, the applicant sent a message to the victim that he got some
employment in Bangalore. At that time also he did not repay the
money giving an excuse that he had no money.

        The record indicate that on 18.02.2025, at about 11.30 a.m.,
the applicant met the victim in her society and took her to his bike
on the pretext that he had kept the money in the dickey of his

                              Page 2 of 4
MANOJ                                                  903-BA-3500-2025.DOC



scooter/two-wheelers. Further, he insisted the victim to come to
his place. Therefore, the victim went to his place. It is alleged that,
the applicant then served the victim a glass of water mixed with
stupefying substance. After drinking the water, the victim lost her
consciousness and, after about 45 minutes, when she regained
consciousness, she found that her clothes were in disorderly
manner and she was raped. At that time, the applicant told her
that he has recorded a video of the said act and, if she would
complain, he would make that video viral. It is alleged that after
two days the Applicant called the victim and demanded
Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom, and threatened that, otherwise, he
would send the video to her family members. Consequently, the
victim sold her two bangles of gold and gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the
applicant. She also sold her son’s gold chain and pendant in
February, 2025 and gave the sale proceeds thereof to the
applicant. On 03.03.2025, she gave Rs.50,000/- to the applicant.
Thereafter also she sold some other gold items and paid him
certain money. On 06.04.2025, the applicant again called her on
WhatsApp and demanded Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, she informed
the aforesaid incident to her husband. In this background the
victim filed the report.

6.      However, considering the material on record and the
photos, it appears that there was closeness between victim and the
applicant and it was consensual. Yet, the narration in the report
and the WhatsApp messages prima facie indicate that there was
some video with the applicant and there was demand of money in
relation to that video. Said video is not recovered.

        Be that as it may. It is undisputed that the matter before the
trial Court is part heard. Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP, on


                               Page 3 of 4
                    MANOJ                                                   903-BA-3500-2025.DOC



                    instructions, stated that the prosecution will examine the
                    remaining witnesses within 2 to 3 months and conclude the trial.
                    Therefore and, considering the matter as a whole, at this stage, I
                    do not deem it appropriate to record any opinion as to the
                    material on record either to grant or reject the prayer for bail.
                    Instead, the trial Court may be requested to expedite the disposal
                    of the case which would certainly meet the ends of justice. The
                    Application is liable to be disposed of, accordingly.

                    7.      Bail Application is disposed of.

                    7.1     The trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the
                    case and make an endevour to dispose of the same within three
                    months from 25.08.2026. Both the parties shall co-operate for the
                    expeditious disposal of the case.

                    7.2     If the trial is not concluded within three months, the
                    applicant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before this
                    Court.

                    7.3     Bail Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

                    7.4     It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are limited to
                    determination of the question of bail in this Application. The trial
                    Court to decide the case on its own merits without getting
                    influence by any of the observations above.



       Digitally
       signed by                                    (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
       PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
       2026.08.27
       19:39:17
       +0530




                                                   Page 4 of 4