SHUBHAM MAROTI DONGRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS LOHARA, TAH. AND DIST. YAVATMAL
APPP/2991/2026 · 2026-10-06
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15889 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15889 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Order 061026aba792.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA]
NO. 792 OF 2026.
Shubham Maroti Dongre -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms S.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State. Ms V.S. Dawda, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 06, 2026.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.511 of 2026 registered with Lohara Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. The first information report came to be lodged by the victim alleging that on the premise of marriage, the applicant has sexually abused her by repeatedly establishing Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13334
Order 061026aba792.26 2 sexual relations with her. Not only this, he has extracted money from the victim, had refused to marry the victim, and instead performed marriage with another woman. Hence, the report.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against the applicant are that he has committed sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions on false promise of marriage, cannot be considered for the reason that the victim was not ready for marriage. He invited my attention to the contents of the first information report, wherein at the initial stage the applicant was ready to marry her, however, she declined to marry the applicant. They were in relationship since 2024, however, it was alleged in the first information report that the sexual intercourse took place in April, 2025. The learned Counsel submits that though it is alleged in the first information report that the applicant had promised to marry the victim, however, after committing sexual intercourse on multiple occasions at different places, he later refused to marry, and has performed marriage with another girl on 20.08.2026. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged on 25.08.2026. The Rgd.
Order 061026aba792.26 3
learned Counsel submits that the fact that since the applicant had performed marriage with another girl, the victim has lodged the first information report after 5 days of the said marriage. He submits that the applicant who offered to marry the victim, however, she declined, but consented for sexual intercourse. In such circumstances, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. and the
learned Counsel for the victim vehemently opposed the application by submitting that Section 69 of the BNS is a special category offence which has been carved out by the Legislature in order to curb the activities of persons committing sexual intercourse by deceitful means and/or by making false promise to marry. The present case is a classic example and clearly falls within the ambit of Section 69 of the BNS. They further submit that it appears from the first information report, that initially the applicant offered to marry the victim, however, she flatly denied. However, he gained trust of the victim and thereafter, developed sexual relationship under false promise of marriage. In such circumstances, they submit that the applicant does not Rgd.
Order 061026aba792.26 4 deserve to be granted bail. They also submit that the applicant has not only committed sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple times, but, also extracted money from her, and therefore, his application is liable to be rejected.
6. Upon consideration of the aforesaid submissions no doubt so far as Section 69 of the BNS is concerned, the Legislature thought it fit to carve out said provision to curb the activities of sexual intercourse by deceitful means or by giving false promise of marriage to a woman. Needless to mention that the false promise to marry must be from the inception. This position of law has already been settled in catena of judgments. Coming to the facts of the present case, after perusal of the first information report, apparently it appears that at the initial stage when the applicant and victim met, at that time the applicant asked whether she is willing to marry him, however, she declined. After perusal of subsequent part of the first information report, it also reveals that the applicant was interested in marriage in 2024, however, the victim has always declined to marry him. It is further to be noted that it is only in the year 2025, the recitals of first information report goes to show that, under Rgd.
Order 061026aba792.26 5 the promise of marriage the applicant has committed sexual intercourse on multiple occasions. Considering the nature of allegations, in my opinion right from inception it does not reveal that the applicant had any intention to commit sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. Considering the nature of allegations, no custodial interrogation would be necessary, the applicant can be granted anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order.
ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant – Shubham Maroti Dongre in connection with Crime No.511 of 2026 registered with Lohara Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 115[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), he be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. as well as, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the Rgd.
Order 061026aba792.26 6 prosecution evidence in any manner and cooperate with the investigating agency. (v) The applicant shall not misuse this grant of bail. (vi) Fees of the appointed Counsel be determined and paid as per Rules.
JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 07/10/2026 14:48:48