BA.3247.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3247 OF 2026 Krushna Marutirao Dhange .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Amolkumar Jadhav a/w. Padmasinh P. Patil, Advocates for Applicant.  Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  Mr. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1– State. 2. Present Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No.283 of 2025 registered by Chakan Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. In the present case it is seen that First Information Report is filed on 05.05.2025 by Respondent No.2 - First Informant who is 21 years old. Applicant is 23 years old. They both were working in the same company admittedly and knew each other. Period of offence 1 of 6 BA.3247.2026.doc stated in FIR is 01.06.2024 to 14.10.2024. The FIR acknowledges the fact that Applicant and First Informant were co-workers at Spark Minda Company situated in Mhalunge, Pune. In June 2024, First Informant was removed from work by Human Resources Department of the said Company but Applicant intervened and persuaded her not to leave Pune and stated that he will persuade the Human Resources manager to re-employ First Informant. Complainant thereafter voluntarily stayed in Pune and between June 2024 to October 2024 Applicant repeatedly outraged her modesty. It is alleged in the FIR that First Informant succumbed to the demand of Applicant because he threatened her to disclose and make viral the objectionable photographs between them and also kept the mobile phone of First Informant with him and despite her opposition assaulted her by blackmailing her into submission. This is the case of prosecution. 4. The record from the chargesheet prima facie shows that the principal allegation of the First Informant regarding repeatedly outraging her modesty by threatening her to make viral their explicit photographs on social media is not prima facie proved by any incriminating material whatsoever save and accept the bald allegation on paper. First Informant states that she fled to her village after 5 months which she could have otherwise done in the first instance itself. First Informant herself states that she had informed her parents and they spoke to the Applicant and told him not to harass her. Despite the 2 of 6 BA.3247.2026.doc above, record shows that First Informant repeatedly went to meet Applicant even thereafter. Ms. Chavan learned appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2 would persuade me to consider the associated circumstances namely emotional abuse and insults and verbal threats, it is prima facie seen from the record that there was no violence or restraint of any nature involved in the relationship and most importantly the parties had used protection while committing the act as admitted by the First Informant herself. 5. Only 3 statements have been recorded i.e. statements of parents and maternal uncle of the First Informant which does not aid the prosecution's case at all. On overall prima facie considerations, consensual relationship between Applicant and Respondent No.2 is evident between the parties as also there is one year delay in lodging the FIR. In view of the above Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 6. In view of the above observations arrived at after perusing the FIR, statement of the Respondent No.2 and the material appended in the Chargesheet, prima facie there is no material placed on record to persuade me to continue the incarceration of Applicant in prison. 7. Having regard to all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) Applicant – Krushna Marutirao Dhange is directed to be immediately released on bail from prison in connection with 3 of 6 BA.3247.2026.doc C.R. No. 283 of 2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station once every month on the third Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the first six months and thereafter as and when called; (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 cancellation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the country 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 not make any attempts to contact the First Informant / victim or any witnesses by any physical or electronic means and attempt to influence them or tamper with evidence in any manner; 4 of 6 BA.3247.2026.doc (viii) 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; (ix) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the victim either physically or by any electronic devices / means until the trial is completed and the verdict is delivered by the Trial Court; and (x) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the prosecution to seek cancellation of this order. 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 and the trial shall be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with law. 9. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the cause of Respondent No. 2. His fees are to 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. 1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024 5 of 6 BA.3247.2026.doc 10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.24 15:41:38 +0530