ABHISHEK PRAMOD GARGversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                        49_BA_4281_2025.doc




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                BAIL APPLICATION NO.4281 OF 2025


Abhishek Pramod Garg                                  …Applicant
      Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr.                         …Respondents


Mr. Vrushabh Savla a/w Sarthak Vij, for the Applicant.
Ms. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Kirshnakant Pandey, for the Respondent No.2.


                       CORAM            DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
                       DATED:           17TH FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-


1.              Mentioned out of turn at the time of rising of the

Court.



2.              By this Application, the Applicant seeks his

enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 536 of 2025

dated 23rd August, 2025 registered with the Meghwadi Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).




                                   Page 1 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


3.              The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the

Applicant and Complainant met at Gulati Sweets and Snacks,

Andheri and became friends. The Applicant was 28 years and

the Complainant was 31 years of age at the time of incident.

Their friendship led to a relationship between them which

further led to consensual physical relationship. It is the

allegation of the Complainant that the Applicant had

promised to marry her and hence, she even introduced him to

her mother and other relatives. She spoke to his family and

his mother also conveyed to her that they accepted her as a

daughter-in-law. There were talks of an ensuing wedding

between the parties. However, due to some reason the

Applicant and Complainant broke up and the marriage plan

could not proceed further. The Applicant shifted to Noida,

Uttar Pradesh and started to avoid the subject of marriage.

Finally on 29th July 2025, the Applicant told her clearly that

he is not interested in marrying her. Thus, pursuant to filing a

complaint, the FIR was registered.




                                   Page 2 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


4.              Mr. Savla, learned counsel for the Applicant,

submits that the relationship between the parties was

consensual and even the physical relationship between the

parties was with the consent of the Complainant. It was only

on account of certain reasons that there was a discord

between the parties and ultimately the Applicant had taken a

decision to break up and not marry her. In these

circumstances, he submits that without any justifiable ground

the Complainant has proceeded to lodge a complaint. He,

therefore, prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.



5.              Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the Complainant,

on instructions from the Complainant, who is present in Court

today, submits that the Complainant does not wish to

prosecute the Applicant and has decided to give her consent

for a quashing petition filed by the Applicant. He submits that

the Complainant filed a complaint because the Applicant

refused to marry her. He submits that prior to her involvement

with the present Applicant, she was engaged to be married to




                                   Page 3 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


another person and only because the Applicant proposed

marriage to her, she broke off the engagement with the earlier

partner. It is contended that there were some costs incurred

on that engagement ceremony and hence, the Complainant

agreed to consent to the bail plea of the Applicant on payment

of Rs.3 Lakhs to her. On the premise of this settlement, the

Complainant has no objection if bail is granted to the

Applicant.



6.              Mr. Sonavane, learned APP, strongly objects to the

grant of bail on this ground. He submits that there cannot be

any such condition of payment for grant of bail. However, he

leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate orders.



7.              I have heard learned counsel for the respective

parties and perused the record of the case with their

assistance. The Complainant is present in Court.



8.              A plain reading of the FIR clearly indicates that

there was a consensual relationship between the parties. The



                                   Page 4 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


parties have also introduced each other to their family

members. Hence, the intent of the Applicant to marry the

Complainant is ascertained from the statement in the FIR

itself. Unfortunately, due to certain contingencies, the

Applicant withdrew his consent to the marriage and

accordingly, communicated the same to the Complainant. This

was the trigger for the Complainant to file a complaint

alleging rape. Considering that the relationship between the

parties was consensual, it is clearly demonstrated that the

Applicant is prima facie not complicit in commission of the

said offence.



9.              It is quite disturbing to note that the Complainant

consented to the grant of bail to the Applicant on acceptance

of some amount from him. It may be that the said amount was

towards the costs of the engagement ceremony etc. as

submitted by Mr. Pandey. However, what cannot be fathomed

is that these alleged 'costs' are towards the expenses incurred

by the Complainant on a previous broken engagement with




                                   Page 5 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


another person, prior to meeting the present Applicant. From

the submissions of Mr. Pandey, on instructions, it appears that

money is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present

criminal proceedings for offence of rape - a proposition that is

not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of the

criminal justice system. In this Court's opinion, the offence of

rape is a heinous violation of a woman's bodily autonomy and

it stands as an offence against society. Such a compromise in

such       an   offence is not only inappropriate but also

fundamentally unjust.



10.             Be that as it may, since the contents of the FIR

clearly indicate that the relationship between the parties was

consensual. Prima facie from a plain reading of the FIR, there

does not appear to be an intention to deceive the complainant

by assuring to marry her only for the purpose of establishing

physical relationship with her.



11.             In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the

Applicant on bail. The submission regarding payment, consent



                                   Page 6 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                              49_BA_4281_2025.doc


of complainant, etc. is completely irrelevant in this regard. It

is accordingly ordered as under:-



                                   ORDER

      i)        The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on

      executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with

      one or two local sureties in the like amount;



      ii)       The   Applicant       is    permitted     to   furnish

      provisional cash bail of Rs.20,000/- for his release

      immediately and file undertaking that he will provide

      one or two local sureties in the like amount of

      Rs.20,000/- within a period of four weeks after his

      release, which shall be accepted by the Trial Court.

      The Applicant shall provide the sureties as directed;



      iii)      The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court

      concerned on each and every date unless exempted

      by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;




                                   Page 7 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       49_BA_4281_2025.doc


      iv)       The Applicant shall also attend the Police

      Station concerned once in a month between 11:00

      a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed;



      v)        If the Applicant holds a passport, he shall

      deposit the same with the Police Station concerned;



      vi)       The Applicant shall not leave India, without

      the permission of the Trial Court;



      vii)      The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to

      influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or

      any person concerned with the case;



      viii)     The Applicant shall inform his latest place of

      residence and contact number immediately after

      being released and / or change of residence or

      mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court

      seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer

      of the Police Station concerned;




                                   Page 8 of 9
                              th
                            17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                             49_BA_4281_2025.doc


      ix)       The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct

      of the trial;



      x)        Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions

      shall entail cancellation of bail.



12.             Application is allowed in the above terms and is

accordingly disposed of.



13.             It is made clear that the observations made herein

are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the

learned 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