903-apeal-38-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 OF 2026 Aniket R. Kuskar …Appellant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. ………….. Mr.Mithilesh Mishra a/w. Adv. Namasvi Bhanushali, Adv. Hrituraj Singh for the Appellant. Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Dilip H. Shukla for Respondent No.2. PSI Jagdish More, Andheri Police Station is present. ………….. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 02.07.2026. P.C. : 1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 9th December 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai below Exhibit-10 in Special Case No.71 of 2024. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant for bail who is in custody in C.R. No.581 of 2023 registered at Andheri Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 376(2)(N), 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(ii)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant, who was already married, by suppressing the said fact, subjected the victim to the sexual intercourse on the pretext that he would marry her. Dinesh S. Sherla 1/3 903-apeal-38-26.odt 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since inception the victim was aware about the marital status of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was going to take divorce from his wife and the victim was aware about the said fact. It is submitted that they even stayed together for some period. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail for about two and half years and the trial is still at the stage of framing of charge. 6. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim submit that the appellant is involved in serious crime. It is submitted that the appellant sexually exploited the victim on the false promise of marriage even though he was already married. It is submitted that the appellant extorted money from the victim. It is thus submitted that the appellant may not be released on bail. 7. I have perused the statement of the victim. Prima facie, there appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is in jail for about two and half years and the trial is still at the stage of framing of charge. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following order is passed. Dinesh S. Sherla 2/3 903-apeal-38-26.odt O R D E R (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 9th December 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai is hereby set aside. (iii) The appellant be released on bail in C.R. No. 581 of 2023 registered at Andheri Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 376(2)(N), 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(ii)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (iv) The appellant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month, i.e., on first Saturday between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm till conclusion of trial. (v) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (vi) The appellant shall not contact the victim. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 3/3