-1- 949-BA-1318-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1318 OF 2026 KRUSHNA ALIAS SONYA VISHNU JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mahesh B. Ubale APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pallavi M. Govande (Appointed through Legal Aid) ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and also the learned Advocate for the original victim. With the able assistance of the learned advocates, I have also perused the prosecution report filed by way of charge-sheet. 2. The present application is for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking enlargement of the applicant on bail, as he was arrested in connection with Crime No.115 of 2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(i), 69 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 2026:BHC-AUG:43374 -2- 949-BA-1318-2026 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant initially had lodged an FIR on 21st February, 2026, alleging that, his daughter, who was studying in the 11th standard, had gone to the temple on 20th February, 2026. After returning home, he was informed by the wife that the victim had gone to answer nature's call and had not returned since then. The victim had carried her mobile phone with her, which was also switched off. The family searched for the victim but could not find. They came to know from their relatives that even the present applicant was not found at his residence. The informant, therefore, filed a complaint of kidnapping at the police station. During the investigation, the applicant and the victim were found on 21st February, 2026 at one relative's houses. The victim was rescued and the applicant- accused was taken into custody and arrested. 4. The applicant thus came to be arrested on 22nd February, 2026 and since then he was in custody. After the victim was rescued and brought to her parents, her statement was recorded by the police on 23rd February, 2026. She narrated that she had relations with the present applicant and as he was insisting for marriage, they both had fled to the house of the applicant's relatives. They resided there overnight, during which -3- 949-BA-1318-2026 there is an allegation that the applicant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim's statement was also recorded before the Magistrate and she was also medically examined, wherein the history was given by the present victim to the Medical Officer which is also recorded and finds place in the charge-sheet. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the age of the victim was 16 years and 4 months and she was well aware about the act that was being performed. He submits that they were in good relations and that the entire allegation is a consensual decision. He submits that the applicant is also of 26 years of age and had an intention of marrying the victim. He submits that the statement given by the victim to the police and also the statement which given under Section 183 of the BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate are contradictory to each other. Before the Magistrate, the victim does not specify that there was any sexual intercourse committed by the applicant upon her. He also invited my attention to the history provided by the victim to the Medical Officer, wherein there are specific mentions that the relations were out of love and consensual. They both had decided to flee for getting married. He submits that all this creates doubt in the prosecution story as to whether the victim was subjected to -4- 949-BA-1318-2026 sexual intercourse. He thus prays that the applicant be released on bail. 6. Learned APP submits that, though the investigation is complete, it has brought on record sufficient material to justify the case that has been put up against the present applicant. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, which is heinous and serious in nature. The consensual theory put up by the applicant is not tenable, as the victim was a minor on the date of commission of the offence. There is ample medical evidence available on record to show that the alleged incident of rape has taken place. He thus prays that the applicant's application be rejected. 7. Learned Advocate for the informant also objects to the application. She contends that the applicant is a resident of the same village. The offences are serious in nature and the victim is a minor. There is a possibility of tampering with the witnesses. In addition to whatever has been stated by the learned APP, she also prays that the application be rejected. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions of all the parties and the documents that have been placed on record, it is desirable to note that the version given by the victim before the -5- 949-BA-1318-2026 police on 23rd February, 2026 does make a reference of sexual intercourse with her at the residence of the applicant's relatives on the night of 20th February, 2026 and 21st February, 2026. However, it is pertinent to mention that, in the statement given under Section 183 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, there is a complete absence of any such allegation of sexual intercourse having been committed by the present applicant on the victim. Even the statement that has been given to the Medical Officer clearly mentions that both of them were in love affair and had consensually decided to flee from the residence. The statement before the Medical Officer also specifically records that they had consensual peno-vaginal sexual intercourse. This statement has been given by the victim herself to the Medical Officer. 9. Though this Court is conscious that the provisions attracted in the alleged offences are under the POCSO Act and that the consent of a minor is absolutely irrelevant, still, at this stage, when the version of the victim has been changing from one authority to another, the prosecution case cannot be said to be beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. At this stage, without going into the merits, considering that the investigation is complete, the custodial interrogation of -6- 949-BA-1318-2026 the present applicant is unwarranted and that the applicant has been in custody since February 2026, I am inclined to allow this application and release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.115 of 2026, registered with Bidkin Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(i), 69 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall not enter the village Mawasgavhan, Tq. Paithan, where the victim resides, till framing of the charge. The applicant shall stay outside the said village for the said period. b) The applicant shall attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. c) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. -7- 949-BA-1318-2026 d) The applicant shall furnish his current residential addresses and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. e) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he posses passport, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of his release. f) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. g) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. h) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale