Bombay High Court
RUFAS DAVID TUPDLversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences, given the part‑heard status of the trial and the applicant’s lack of culpability for the delay.
Summary
Rufas David Tupdal, accused of rape, criminal intimidation and publishing an obscene video under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 67A IT Act, had been in jail for over three years. The prosecution alleged he forced sexual intercourse with a student, recorded it, and disseminated the video via a WhatsApp group. Six of the fifteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the trial was still pending. Earlier bail applications were rejected, but the court kept the option open for a later application. Considering the part‑heard status of the trial, the applicant’s lack of responsibility for the delay, and the victim’s affidavit showing no objection, the court granted bail with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving rape, criminal intimidation and dissemination of obscene material under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 67A IT Act.
- Whether the part‑heard status of the trial and the delay in its completion justify granting bail.
- Whether the victim’s affidavit indicating no objection influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376, 506
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67A
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- sexual assault
- criminal intimidation
- IT Act
- obscene video
- part‑heard trial
- pre‑trial detention
- conditions of bail
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 9(A)-BA-886-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
18:19:42 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.886 OF 2026
Rufas David Tupdal …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Ms. Vidhi Dugad i/by Khemka & Associates for the applicant.
Ms. A. A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Komal Sinha (appointed as Amicus Curiae), for the
Respondent No.2.
PSI – Sanjay Ghag, Malwani Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Record indicates that Mr. Marbart D’souza, has filed a
Vakalatnama and he is appearing for Respondent No.2. Despite a
message, Mr. Marbart D’souza, did not appear. The applicant is in
jail for last more than three years. Therefore, Advocate Ms. Komal
Sinha, is appointed as amicus curiae to represent and espouse the
cause of the victim.
3. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with an
FIR bearing Cr.No.815 of 2023 registered with Malwani Police
Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 67A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “IT Act”), on the
report dated 4th July, 2023 filed by the Respondent No.2.
4. The prosecution case is that, at the relevant time, the victim
used to attend one Apex Coaching Class where the applicant was
Page 1 of 5
MANOJ 9(A)-BA-886-2026.DOC
serving as a teacher. One day in January 2023, when the victim
was alone in the class room, the applicant said her that he likes
her. However, the victim replied that she does like him. It is
alleged that on 11th June 2023, at about 10.30 a.m. the applicant
called the victim at his residence on the pretext of coaching.
Therefore, the victim went to his place. The applicant then closed
the door of his house from outside and entered in his house from a
window. Further, the applicant committed forcible sexual
intercourse with the victim and also recorded a video thereof.
Meanwhile, the victim tried to escape but she could not, as the
house was locked from outside. Later the applicant disseminated
that video on a WhatsApp group of the said coaching class of
which he was an Admin. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be
registered. On completion of the investigation, police submitted
the charge-sheet. The trial Court declined to release the applicant
on bail.
5. Earlier, the the applicant had filed BA/3567 of 2023, which
was rejected on merit vide Order dated 14th December 2024.
However, an option was kept open for the applicant to apply for
bail at the later stage depending upon the progress of the trial.
Thereafter, the applicant filed BA/5271 of 2024, which was
disposed of vide Order dated 20th June, 2025. Said Order reads :-
“1. Considering the earlier order dated 14
December 2023 passed by this Court, there is no
change in circumstances except delay in completion
of the trial, the application can be disposed of by
directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial.
2. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and shall make an endeavor to complete the trial
within six months from today.
Page 2 of 5
MANOJ 9(A)-BA-886-2026.DOC
3. In case, the trial is not completed within six
months, it shall be open for the applicant to revive his
request for bail after six months.
4. The Bail Application stands disposed of.”
6. Ms. Dugad, learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution
has cited 15 witnesses. Till date, six prosecution witnesses have
been examined which also includes the material witnesses. Thus,
the trial has sufficiently progressed, however, it is not likely to be
concluded in the forseeable future. The applicant is in jail for more
than three years. She, therefore, urged to grant bail.
7. Ms. Deshmukh, the learned APP and Ms. Sinha, the learned
Amicus, on the other hand, have submitted that considering the
facts of the case and that the case is part heard, bail be refused.
8. I have considered these submissions. Admittedly, the case is
part heard as six prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
However, the prosecution is going to examine total 15 witnesses.
Therefore, the trial will certainly take some time to conclude.
Although on the earlier occasions this Court was not inclined to
grant bail, an option was kept open for the applicant to apply for
bail at the later stage depending upon the progress of the trial or to
revive his request for bail after six months if the trial is not
completed within six months as above. The applicant is not
blamable for the delay in advancement of the trial. The victim has
filed her Affidavit thereby giving her no objection to release the
applicant on bail.
9. In the wake of above, the applicant may be released on bail.
Hence, following Order:-
Page 3 of 5
MANOJ 9(A)-BA-886-2026.DOC
(i) Applicant – Rufas David Tupdal shall be released on
bail in connection with an FIR bearing Cr.No.815 of 2023
registered with Malwani Police Station, on his furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Malwani
Police Station, on the 1 st day of each calendar month
between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion of the
trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact
the victim and shall not enter in the Malad area till
conclusion of the trial.
(vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
application and should not influence the out come of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
Page 4 of 5
MANOJ 9(A)-BA-886-2026.DOC
10. At this stage, as requested by Ms. Dugad, the applicant is
granted four weeks time to furnish the surety. Till then, the
applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposing a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of
furnishing the surety. On furnishing such surety/ies, the amount
of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the applicant shall be returned.
11. Bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…