MANOJ MALHARI SOMWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41573
                                                                        RB927808-26

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 808 OF 2026

            Manoj s/o Malhari Somwanshi
            Age 40 years, Occu: Agri
            R/o Nideban Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur                 … Applicant
            Versus
            1) The state of Maharashtra
            Through P.I. Police Station Udgir (Rural) Dist.Latur

            2) XYZ
                                                 ...
            Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/for Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. V. K. Kotecha, Addl. PP for the State
            Mr. S. R. Pande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.


                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                      Dated : 8th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, learned

            Advocate appearing for respondent No.2/informant and also the

            learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of the learned

            counsel for the parties, I have also perused the entire charge-sheet and

            most importantly, the medical papers annexed to the charge-sheet.


            2.       The present application is for regular bail in connection with

            Crime No. 130 of 2026 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station

            District Latur, for the offences punishable under sections 64, 64(1) and

            351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The record indicates that

            the present incident has taken place on 20.03.2026. Offence came to be

            registered on 23.03.2026 at the instance of the victim herself and the


                                                                               1 of 8
                                                               RB927808-26


applicant came to be arrested        in connection with the offence on

24.03.2026. Presently, the applicant is in judicial custody.


3.       The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant who is

aged about 40 years was running a small mess and was acquainted

with the applicant.      According to her, on 20.03.2026, at about 11.00

a.m., when the informant and her daughter were at home, the

applicant came there on the pretext of having a meal. After consuming

some food, he picked up a quarrel with the informant alleging that

some poison has been mixed in the food. It is alleged that thereafter

he forcibly took her into the bed room,     made her lie on the bed and

subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.   It is further alleged that

the applicant    threatened the informant that if she discloses the

incident to anybody, he would kill her and would also commit rape

upon her daughter.       On the basis of her report, the aforesaid crime

came to be registered. The applicant was thereafter arrested by the

Investigating Officer.


4.       The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

applicant has been falsely implicated on account of previous dispute

between the parties. The learned Advocate invites my attention to the

copy of non cognizable offence reported by the applicant against the

present informant and her sister on 20.02.2025 alleging therein that on

19.02.2025, the present informant and her sister have assaulted him by

referring his caste, on account of his demanding an amount of Rs.40

lakhs which was paid to the present informant. It is further submitted

                                                                     2 of 8
                                                             RB927808-26


that there was monetary dispute between the parties and that the

present FIR is a counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by the

applicant. It is further submitted that although the alleged incident

occurred on on 20.03.2026, the FIR came to be registered only on

23.03.2026 and that the delay in the present case assumes significance

in the backdrop of preexisting enmity and the dispute.


5.       The learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that

the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 20 years, was

admittedly present in the house at the relevant time. According to him,

her statement does not constitute an eyewitness account of the alleged

sexual assault. It is also submitted that no independent neighbour has

supported the prosecution case. Reliance is further placed upon the

medical examination to contend that no external injury was noticed on

the person of the informant as well as on the person of the applicant. It

is, therefore, submitted that the surrounding circumstances rendered

the prosecution version doubtful. The investigation is not yet complete

and, according to the learned Advocate, the continued detention of the

applicant is unwarranted. He, thus, prays that the application of the

present applicant be allowed and he be released on bail.


6.       The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. He submits that the statement of the informant specifically

attributes forcible sexual intercourse to the applicant. The daughter of

the informant has also been examined during the investigation and her

statement lends support to the circumstances immediately surrounding

                                                                    3 of 8
                                                            RB927808-26


the occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant has four

criminal antecedents. Significantly, one of those antecedents concerns

an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It

is, therefore, submitted that it is not a case where the antecedents are

only unrelated or can be ignored. Apprehension is also expressed that

considering the allegations of threat extended to the informant and her

daughter, releasing of the applicant on bail may expose the witnesses to

pressure and/or intimidation.


7.       The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2/

informant adopts the submissions of the learned Addl.PP. He submits

that the informant has explained the circumstances in which the FIR

was not immediately registered. It is contended that after the incident,

the applicant had threatened the informant with consequences not

merely to herself but also to her daughter. It is, therefore, submitted

that the delay cannot be viewed in isolation. He further points out that

the applicants antecedents disclose his involvement in four serious

crimes including an offence in the similar nature.


8.       I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

investigation papers with the assistance of the learned Advocates for

the parties.   At the stage of considering bail, the court is neither

expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor to

record finding which may prejudice the either side at the time of trial.

Nevertheless, the court is required to ascertain whether the material

collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case and while

                                                                   4 of 8
                                                            RB927808-26


doing so, consider the nature,        gravity of   accusation along-with

criminal antecedents and possibility of repetition of the offence and

likelihood of the witnesses being influenced.


9.       There are undoubtedly certain circumstances that the defence

would be entitled to exploit at the trial. The parties appear to have

had a previous dispute. The applicant had approached the police

against the informant even prior to the registration of the present

crime. The time gap between the registration of the Non-cognizable

offence and the present offence is almost about one year. The medical

examination does not disclose any significant external injury either to

the victim or to the applicant. This circumstance cannot be brushed

aside. At the same time, there evidentiary effect cannot be finally

determined in the bail proceedings.


10.      he submission based on the presence of the 20-year-old

daughter in the house also requires to be considered in its proper

perspective. Her statement indicates that she was present in the house

and that there was a quarrel preceding the incident. She further states

that, when she called out to her mother after the latter had taken the

victim inside, the door was not opened. She speaks about the

circumstances in which her mother emerged thereafter. Thus, though

the daughter cannot be treated as an eyewitness to the actual act

alleged to have taken place inside the room, her statement is relevant

to the events immediately preceding and following the alleged incident.

Whether that evidence ultimately establishes the prosecution case is a

                                                                   5 of 8
                                                                RB927808-26


matter for trial. Equally, absence of injury by itself cannot, at this

stage, be   treated     sufficient to discard the allegations    of forcible

intercourse. The informant is an adult woman, her age is 40 years and

cannot furnish the presumption either for or against the possibility of

forcible forcible sexual assault. The issue has to be determined from

the   evidence and surrounding           circumstances and       not upon

assumptions concerning the age or physical capacity of the prosecutrix.


11.      The delay in registration of the FIR also cannot be considered

in isolation. The prosecution alleges that the applicant threatened not

only the informant but also her daughter. The informant has offered an

explanation concerning the circumstances in which she approached the

police. Whether that explanation is ultimately acceptable is a matter of

evidence. At this stage, the interval of about 3 days is not of such

character that it would demolish the prosecution case. What assumes

considerable significance for the purpose of present application is the

criminal antecedents of the applicant. The material placed before the

court shows his involvement in previous four crimes. One of them is

Crime No. 360 of 2024 registered with Vivekanandnagar Police Station

for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The remaining

antecedents also concerns the offence registered at Udgir           (Rural)

Police Station. Thus, it is not a case of solitary previous offence having

no bearing whatsoever upon the assessment required to be made while

considering the bail.


12.      In the case of Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.

                                                                       6 of 8
                                                              RB927808-26


825 of 2026, decided on 11.02.2026), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

reiterated that criminal antecedents constitute a material consideration

in the adjudication of bail and cannot be ignored while assessing the

possibility of repetition of the offence, interference with witnesses, and

the overall suitability of releasing an accused on bail. At the same time,

antecedents cannot be treated as an automatic or absolute bar to the

grant of bail. They have to be evaluated along with the nature of the

present accusation and the other material on record.


13.       Applying those principles to the present case, the allegation of

forcible sexual intercourse and the surrounding circumstances will have

to be tested before the trial court by leading evidence. At the stage of

bail, taking into consideration the statement of the victim’s daughter

and also the fact that there is previous existing enmity and further

more, the medical evidence, which is absolutely silent of any kind of

injury upon either victim or the applicant on account of resistance

while committing forcible sexual intercourse persuades this court to

exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant. In the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application deserves to be

allowed. Hence, the following order:

                                ORDER


(i)   The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime no. 130 of 2026
      registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station District Latur, for
      the offences punishable under sections 64, 64(1) and 351(2)


                                                                     7 of 8
                                                                      RB927808-26

               of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on
               furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
               Thousand only)/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.

           (iii)) The applicant shall not enter the Udgir Taluka till     the
               evidence of victim as well as her daughter is recorded before
               the trial court, except for attending the trial or with prior
               permission of the Trial Court.

           (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or
               contact with the prosecution witnesses.

           (iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address
               to the investigating officer.

           (vi) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the
               trial.




                                                     (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                               8 of 8