1 23.ba.888.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 888 OF 2026 Rajkumar s/o Sukhdev Uikey ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for the applicant (appointed). Shri N.R. Rode, APP for the non-applicant no.1/State. Shri Amol Hunge, Advocate for non-applicant no.2 (appointed). CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 18.08.2026. Heard. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.199 of 2025 registered with Gadchiroli Police Station District Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 78(2), 351(2), 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 66(c), 66(e), 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The FIR came to be lodged by the victim alleging sexual intercourse twice by the applicant by giving threats on refusal of her to meet him. As the victim refused to continue the relations with the applicant, he called her and her family members and others associated with her repeatedly thereby harassing her and hence the report. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of sexual relations, the victim was major. The relation between the applicant and the victim is 2026:BHC-NAG:10786 2 23.ba.888.2026 consensual being a love relation. They got acquainted on the Facebook, which further converted into a love relation. The applicant consistently asked her to meet however as she refused, the applicant regularly try to call the victim at Hostel by calling on mobile of Principal of the Hostel or the father of the victim and therefore, due to this act, the victim registered the FIR. There is no evidence that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse since the place of the incident was shown to be a Lodge in whose register neither the name of the applicant appeared nor there is any CCTV footage and also no TI parade was conducted so as to identify that it was the applicant who took the victim to that lodge. And therefore considering all these aspects and the fact that the applicant is behind bars since one and half year, he prayed to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand learned APP appearing for the State and learned appointed Counsel for non- applicant no.2/Victim vehemently opposed the application on the ground that, by giving threats that he will show the photographs to the victim’s warden as well as her parents, the applicant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim for two days. Though the victim is major however this cannot be said to be consensual act since the consent was obtained by the applicant by giving threats to her. The applicant harassed the victim by continuously calling her and further the applicant has also uploaded objectionable photographs on Instagram and therefore, considering the seriousness of the crime, the bail is prayed to be rejected. 3 23.ba.888.2026 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It appears that there was love relations between the applicant and the victim, however thereafter they broke up. The applicant harassed the victim continuously by calling on warden’s mobile, or the principle or her father. The applicant and the victim met on 13.02.2025 and 14.02.2025, on that day by showing obscene photographs and by giving threats of showing the said photographs to her warden or her parents, he committed sexual intercourse with her. Though after that they separated however the applicant harassed the victim by calling her on principal mobile as well as on warden’s mobile and also made viral the photograph on Instagram. All these allegations are serious in nature, however the fact remains that prima facie there was consensual relations between the applicant and the victim, she was major at the time of incident and further the applicant is behind bar since 28.03.2025. Therefore, considering all these peculiar facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bars. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicant Rajkumar s/o Sukhdev Uikey in connection with Crime No.199 of 2025 registered with Gadchiroli Police Station District Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 78(2), 351(2), 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 66(c), 66(e), 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of 4 23.ba.888.2026 Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (d) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend concerned Police Station twice a month i.e. on 1st and 15th day of each month during 10.00 am to 2.00 pm till the filing of the charge-sheet and after commencement of trial, he shall attend the trial. If he fails to attend or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 7. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 11:20:36