KARAN BHIMSING RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42023
                                                -1-
                                                                      BA-906-2026

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              BAIL APPLICATION NO.906 OF 2026

              Karan S/o. Bhimsing Rajput,
              Age : 23 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
              R/o. Satana, Tq. Vaijapur,
              Dist. Aurangabad.                                  … Applicant

                          Versus

              1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                     Through Police Inspector,
                     Vaijapur Police Station,
                     Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

              2.     X.Y.Z.                                      … Respondents

                                             ..…
              Mr. Rajendra N. Chavan h/f. Mr. Santosh A. Gaikwad, Advocate for
              Applicant.
              Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for Respondent – State.
              Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed
              through Legal Aid)
                                           .....

                                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026
              ORDER :


              1.        This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

              Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection

              with Crime No.84 of 2026 registered with Vaijapur Police Station,

              District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The applicant is aged about 23

              years and is in custody since 3 rd February, 2026. Investigation is

              complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The prosecution
                                 -2-
                                                        BA-906-2026

has invoked Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the relevant

provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.



2.      The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 30 th

January, 2026 the mother of the victim approached Vaijapur

Police Station reporting that her minor daughter had left the house

and could not be traced. The crime was initially registered against

an unknown person for kidnapping. The victim subsequently

appeared before the police. In her first statement, she stated that

her parents were proposing her marriage with another boy; that

she was unwilling to marry him and, being upset, had left the

house without informing anybody. She stated that she had

remained at a temple and thereafter approached the police station.



3.      On 2nd February, 2026, however, a supplementary

statement of the victim came to be recorded. In that statement she

disclosed that she had been acquainted with the applicant for about

a year; that approximately two months earlier he had given her a

mobile phone and they used to speak with each other; and that on

the relevant day the applicant telephoned her and proposed that
                                 -3-
                                                         BA-906-2026

they should leave and marry. According to this version, the

applicant also caused her to speak with his mother. She thereafter

met the applicant and travelled with him for some distance. It is in

this supplementary statement that an allegation of sexual

intercourse with the applicant came to be made. The further

narration indicates that the applicant thereafter asked her to

proceed towards Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and stated that he

would join her, but ultimately did not do so. The victim thereafter

travelled on her own and ultimately approached the police. These

features of the prosecution case are also substantially reflected in

the applicant's synopsis and bail pleadings.



4.      Significantly, a statement of the victim under Section 183

of the BNSS was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate

on 2nd February, 2026. In that statement, though she narrated the

telephone conversation with the applicant, the proposal to leave

and marry and her journey to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, there is

no allegation of sexual intercourse or sexual assault by the

applicant. The record further shows that another statement under

Section 183 of the BNSS came to be recorded on 12 th February,

2026. Even therein, the allegation of sexual intercourse does not

find mention. The bail application specifically relies upon this

circumstance.
                                 -4-
                                                          BA-906-2026




5.      Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that

the prosecution case has undergone material changes from one

statement to another. The first version was that the victim had

voluntarily left her house because she was unwilling to marry the

person selected by her parents. The allegation of sexual

intercourse surfaced only in the supplementary police statement.

It is submitted that such allegation is conspicuously absent from

the statements recorded before the Magistrate. Learned counsel

further points out that the material itself indicates a pre-existing

relationship between the applicant and the victim and regular

telephonic communication between them. He further relies upon

the discrepancy in the documents concerning the age of the victim.

According to the defence, one document forming part of the charge-

sheet records the date of birth as 21st February, 2009, whereas

another record relied upon by the prosecution indicates a

substantially different age. It is therefore submitted that, without

seeking a final determination of age at this stage, the inconsistency

is relevant while considering whether continued incarceration of

the applicant is warranted. It is further submitted that the

applicant has no criminal antecedents, investigation is complete,

charge-sheet has been filed and his further detention would serve

no investigative purpose.
                                   -5-
                                                          BA-906-2026

6.       Learned APP opposed the application. It is submitted that

the victim was admittedly below eighteen years and therefore, any

purported consent is legally immaterial. The supplementary

statement contains a specific allegation of sexual intercourse and,

having regard to the age of the victim, the offences alleged are

serious. It is further submitted that the applicant and the victim

belong to the same vicinity and, if released, the possibility of the

applicant approaching the victim or influencing the prosecution

witnesses cannot be ruled out. The victim and her parents have

also opposed release of the applicant. The learned APP therefore

submits that no case for bail is made out.



7.       I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

chargesheet. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the Court

is not expected, while deciding an application for bail, to undertake

a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or to record findings

which may prejudice either side at the trial. The material is

required to be examined only to ascertain whether continued pre-

trial detention of the applicant is justified.



8.       The first circumstance which assumes significance is the

way the prosecution case has developed. The FIR originated from

the disappearance of the victim. When the victim was traced, her
                                -6-
                                                         BA-906-2026

initial explanation was that her parents intended to arrange her

marriage against her wishes and that she had therefore left the

house voluntarily. The supplementary statement subsequently

introduced the applicant and an allegation of sexual intercourse.

However, when the victim's statement was recorded before the

Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS on 2nd February, 2026,

the allegation of sexual intercourse did not find place therein. The

subsequent statement before the Magistrate dated 12th February,

2026 also requires consideration in the same context. At this stage,

it would neither be proper to discard the supplementary statement

nor to determine which of the versions is truthful. Nevertheless,

the material variations between the successive versions are

circumstances which legitimately enter the prima facie assessment

for bail.



9.          The material also indicates that the victim and the

applicant were acquainted prior to the incident, were in telephonic

contact and that the victim travelled from one place to another

substantially on her own. These circumstances cannot be treated

as establishing legal consent to sexual intercourse. If the victim

was below eighteen years, consent by itself would not answer an

offence under the POCSO Act. At the same time, while considering

bail, the Court is not prohibited from noticing the surrounding
                                 -7-
                                                           BA-906-2026

circumstances and the nature of the relationship disclosed by the

prosecution material itself.



10.      The question concerning the age of the victim also needs to

be approached with caution. There appear to be inconsistent

documents in the charge-sheet regarding her date of birth. It would

be impermissible in the present proceeding to pronounce upon the

genuineness or correctness of one document in preference to

another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar

Pradesh v. Anurudh reported in 2026 SCC OnlineSC 40 : 2026

INSC 47, has held that determination of the age of a victim is a

matter for trial and that, where the question of age arises at the

stage of bail, the Court may only take a prima facie view from the

documents placed before it and should not embark upon an

adjudication of their correctness, which would amount to a mini-

trial. Therefore, the discrepancy is noticed only as one of the

circumstances relevant at this stage and no final opinion regarding

the age of the victim is expressed.



11.      The provisions of the Atrocities Act have subsequently

been added to the crime. However, the present application is for

regular bail after arrest and not for anticipatory bail. The statutory

embargo under Sections 18 and 18-A, which operates in the field of
                                 -8-
                                                          BA-906-2026

pre-arrest bail, does not by itself prohibit consideration of regular

bail. The allegations under the special enactment will necessarily

be tested at the trial. Nothing stated in this order shall be

understood as expressing a concluded opinion upon the ingredients

of those offences.



12.       The applicant has been in custody since 3 rd February,

2026 and has thus undergone incarceration for more than seven

months. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been

filed. His custodial interrogation is no longer required. The

prosecution does not point out any criminal antecedents of the

applicant. The apprehension that the applicant may approach the

victim or influence witnesses is legitimate, particularly since the

parties are from the same vicinity, but that concern can, in the

facts of the case, be addressed by imposing stringent conditions

including a prohibition against entering the locality where the

victim resides and against contacting her or her family in any

manner.



13.       The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the offences

alleged and of the protective object underlying the POCSO Act.

Seriousness of the accusation, however, cannot be considered in

isolation. The Court must simultaneously consider the nature of
                                    -9-
                                                           BA-906-2026

the material collected, the successive versions of the victim, the

stage of investigation, the period already spent in custody,

antecedents of the accused, the possibility of his presence being

secured at trial and the likelihood of interference with the

administration of justice. In the peculiar facts of the present case,

continued incarceration of the applicant after completion of

investigation is not necessary merely because the offences alleged

carry severe punishment.


14.          The observations made above are confined strictly to the

consideration of the present bail application. The learned Special

Judge shall decide the trial independently and uninfluenced by any

prima facie observation made herein.


15.          In view of the above, the application deserves to be

allowed. Hence, the following order:


                                  ORDER


      (i)     The Bail Application is allowed.


      (ii)    The applicant – Karan Bhimsing Rajput shall be released
      on bail in connection with Crime No.84 of 2026 registered with
      Vaijapur Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
      on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
      solvent sureties in the like amount.
                                       -10-
                                                                     BA-906-2026

          (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact,
          communicate     with    or   approach       the   victim     or   her
          parents/family members, whether personally, telephonically,
          electronically, through social media or through any third
          person.


          (iv) The applicant shall not enter the village/locality in which
          the victim ordinarily resides, except for attending the Court
          proceedings, until conclusion of the trial, unless prior
          permission of the Special Court is obtained.


          (v)   The applicant shall not threaten, induce or influence any
          prosecution witness or tamper with the prosecution evidence.


          (vi) The applicant shall furnish his residential address and
          mobile number to the Investigating Officer as well as to the
          learned Special Court and shall intimate any change thereof in
          advance.


          (vii) The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the
          learned    Special   Court   regularly      and   shall    not    seek
          unnecessary adjournments.


          (viii) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
          prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.


                                              (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                     JUDGE

Tandale