Bombay High Court
MAYUR PRAVINBHAI MAKWANAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Mayur Pravinbhai Makwana, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged sexual offences under Sections 70(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The victim’s statements were found to be contradictory, with a supplementary statement reducing the number of alleged perpetrators from three to one and differing accounts of the incident. The prosecution argued that the applicant was the sole accused present, while the defence highlighted the lack of clear identification and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The court noted the dichotomy in evidence but concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a cash bond, sureties, reporting requirements, and other standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and lack of clear identification of the applicant preclude the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify continued detention of the applicant pending trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(2), 70(1)
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- inconsistent statements
- sexual assault
- criminal procedure
- legal aid
Judgment
69.BA.3574.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3574 OF 2026
Mayur Pravinbhai Makwana .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Mr. Vivek Arote a/w. Mr. Akshay Dingale, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Dhanesh Sanjay Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent
No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Arote, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Sharma, learned
appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.
No.11 of 2025 registered with Bharti Vidyapith Police Station, Pune for
offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.3 in the present case.
There are two other accused persons who are already on enlarged on
bail. Case of the prosecution as per the victim’s version who is an adult,
1 of 5
69.BA.3574.2026.doc
is that on the intervening night of 03.01.2025 and 04.01.2025 she had
traveled from Mumbai to Pune to visit her friend’s place after having a
quarrel with her husband. At her friends place she was put up and
offered certain drinks by her friend after which she became
unconscious and it is alleged that there were three persons who had
then had physical relationship with her. Applicant is not named by
her. Intriguingly the prosecution case proceeds on the basis that the
persons who have been named by the victim namely Ganesh and
Shubham, are none other than the present Applicant. It may even be
true that it may be the Applicant who may be present but the version
of the victim is thoroughly inconsistent when she names the other two
co-accused persons as being present whereas identification and identity
of the present Applicant is not established. Further statement given
during her medico-legal examination is also prima facie inconsistent
with her own version as stated in the First Information Report.
4. Further a supplementary statement has been recorded on
06.01.2025 of the victim wherein she gives a completely different
version of the incident in question and the fact that instead of three
persons, there was only one person who was present at the time of the
incident. The case of prosecution becomes evident when the witness
statement of a friend of the victim is recorded, a copy of which is
appended in the police report which prima facie shows the version of
the victim herself stating that she was forced into the said acts.
2 of 5
69.BA.3574.2026.doc
5. In view of the clear dichotomy and inconsistencies present, I
agree with the case made out by learned Advocate for Applicant.
6. Mr. Sharma, learned appointed Advocate on behalf of the
Respondent No.2 has persuaded me to consider otherwise that after
the investigation it has been clearly revealed that there was only one
accused person who was present in the house and that would be none
other than the present Applicant. If that be the case, then there has to
be prima facie evidence at the threshold to consider such prosecution
case, failing which this Court cannot come to such a conclusion. In that
view, complicity of the Applicant and the theory propounded by the
prosecution can undoubtedly be proved at trial, the Applicant has
made out a case for grant of bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant is directed to be
released on bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one or two surety / sureties of the
like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
3 of 5
69.BA.3574.2026.doc
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(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 his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
8. 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.
4 of 5
69.BA.3574.2026.doc
9. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr.
Sharma, learned appointed Advocate through the legal aid. His fees be
paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on
production of a server copy of this order and other compliances in
accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin
Telharkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1 and the Schedule under
Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority
Rules, 1998.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.10.10
14:12:52 +0530
1 Judgement dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc.Civil Application No.134 of 2024.
5 of 5
Checking your session…