1 80ba1535.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 80 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1535 OF 2026 GOVIND UMAKANT JADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.V. Hange … CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties. 2. The present application is filed by the Original Accused seeking regular bail in connection with the Crime No. 269 of 2026 dated 26.05.2026, lodged by the Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 74, 296, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged by the prosecutrix, wherein it is alleged that during the period from 01.07.2025 till 30.11.2025 the present applicant has committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions by taking the prosecutrix to a lodge named Nagaarjuna lodge-hotel situated at Maharana Pratap Chowk, District Nanded. The allegations in the FIR discloses that the applicant had developed relations on account of the prosecutrix visiting his shop for 2 80ba1535.26 purchase of certain goods. It is alleged that at initial time the applicant initiated physical touch and thereafter insisted for physical relations under the threats that if his demands are not satisfied then the image and reputation of the prosecutrix will be maligned in the society. The FIR further discloses that due to the fear of harm to the reputation to her son and husband as well as of herself the prosecutrix succumbed to the demands of the present applicant, and therefore, permitted the applicant to have a physical relationship. The FIR further discloses that as the prosecutrix after one of such incident had informed the applicant that henceforth he should not bother, thereafter, the applicant allegedly has visited the house of the prosecutrix and in presence of her husband had abused the prosecutrix by stating that the amount has been paid to the prosecutrix for maintaining physical relations with him. It is alleged that because of this incident the husband of the prosecutrix had dragged her out of the matrimonial house and she is residing at her parent’s house since 8 days from the registration of the offence. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant and the prosecutrix both are major and both of them are married. He further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the same demonstrates that two major individuals have consensually maintained physical relationship with each other. He further argues that the contents of the FIR itself suggest that the prosecutrix has willingly 3 80ba1535.26 accompanied the present applicant at Nagaarjuna lodge-hotel, which according to the applicant it is situated at a distance of 15 to 16 k.m. away from the place of their residence. The said Lodge is situated at a different village. He therefore, argues that the informant/prosecutrix voluntarily travelled with him from the village Ardhapur to Nanded on more than one occasion. The circumstances prima facie supports his argument that the relationship between two adults which was subsequently given the colour of criminal offence. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant then referred to the statement of the informant’s husband, wherein, the informant’s husband has also reiterated about the incident that took place in his house when the applicant had visited his house. The learned Advocate argues that inspite of getting knowledge about the abuses and threats, the husband of the victim did not lodge any complaint. The statement when perused, also shows that prior to his visit, the prosecutrix had disclosed about forcible physical relations demanded by the applicant to her husband, but no steps were taken at that time. Thus according to the learned Advocate it creates cloud over the allegations made by the prosecutrix subsequently in the FIR. As far as the registration of the FIR is concerned, it is submitted by the Manager and the entry at the hotel indicates that the applicant woman occupied room No.304 on 04.11.2025 as mentioned. The register of entries concerning the alleged visit is of July and August, 2025, infact, are not found as per 4 80ba1535.26 statement of the manager and the register is misplaced. The statement of the manager does not mention that he is a witness to what has transpired into the room, even, therefore, submitted that this material almost show the applicant’s presence at the lodge but it does not establish as to whether accompanying woman was the informant or whether any act occurred is without consent. 5. The learned APP opposes the application. He submits that the allegations concerned about the repeated forcible sexual relationships obtained by threatening a married woman with social defamation. The informant’s silence cannot be construed as consent, particularly when she has explained that she remained silent because of fear of her family and her matrimonial life. The alleged register and the manager’s statement prima-facie corroborates the applicant’s visit to the lodge on 04.11.2025. He also submits that mentioning of the victim’s name in the register is corroborated by the Adhar Card which has been recovered during the investigation from the informant. Even the statement of the manager, prima-facie corroborates the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix against the present applicant. He further argued that the applicant and the informant are the resident of same locality and therefore, there is every possibility that the applicant may pressurize the informant or the prosecution witnesses. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alongwith 5 80ba1535.26 the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the learned APP prayed that the application may be rejected. 7. I have heard and given considerable thought to the prosecution story as well as the submissions advanced by both the learned Advocates. I have also examined the entire charge-sheet with the assistance of the learned Advocates. It is settled principle that at the stage of bail the Court is not required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusations but on the strength of prima-facie material available on record and possibility of absconding of the accused or influencing the prosecution witnesses has to be given prime consideration alongwith the stage of investigation and likelihood of trial being obstructed. The equal importance is the consideration of seriousness of the offence though important, the consideration cannot be by itself justified in continuation of the investigation, is complete with identified risk. The another aspect that requires to be taken into consideration while dealing with the present case, wherein, delay is almost more than 6 months in reporting the offence. The delay in reporting the offence is serious and cannot by itself be treated as destructive to the prosecution case. The victim may remain silent because of fear, stigma and concern of the family. In the present case however, the delay assumes some relevance at the stage of bail when considering the intervening events. The last alleged incident is dated 04.11.2025, whereas, the FIR is registered on 26.05.2026. The Complainant lodged report which arises from dispute of two families 6 80ba1535.26 arise from December 2025. Although true that the applicant’s complaint cannot be determined at this stage. Its contents and particularly its timing cannot be completely ignored, however the complaint dated 12.05.2026 also preceded the FIR. 8. Second important consideration as to the statement of the informant’s husband, brother and the father. These statements are substantial in nature of the subsequent disclosure. The husband of the informant narrated that the allegations to him about 8 days before his statement was recorded. His statement does not furnish any independent account of the alleged incident at the lodge. These statement may lend assurance of fact that the informant subsequently disclosed the allegations but its evidentiary value and the circumstances in which the disclosure was made will have to be tested at the time of trial. 9. The alleged registers are recovered by the Investigating Officer during the process of investigation. The contents of the entry and the name of the applicant do not match against the room No. 304 on 04.11.2025. The statement of the manager however, does not disclose any personal knowledge about the act committed. The material concerning the Lodge, therefore, prima-facie supports the applicant’s presence there but does not independently establish the allegations in absence of consent. The another glaring fact that needs to be taken into 7 80ba1535.26 consideration is in respect of no corresponding record regarding the alleged visit in the month of July and August 2025 has been found during the investigation. 10. Thus taking all these into consideration, it is not denied that the allegations are serious and deserve to be tried. The material presently available leaves accusations between the parties, and the question of consent is a matter that requires evidence at the time of trial. However, the fact still remains that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is lingering in the custody since 26.05.2026. No further custodial interrogation is required in the present case. 11. The applicant is permanent resident of village Ardhapur as his business is there. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant and therefore, the continuing detention of the applicant is not necessary for the purpose of any kind of investigation. 12. The apprehension that has been canvassed by the learned APP in respect of the creating pressure on the Complainant or other prosecution witnesses in a situation where both the Complainant as well as the present applicant are residing in the same locality will have to be taken into consideration. This apprehension can be addressed by imposing strict conditions, restraining the applicant from contacting the 8 80ba1535.26 informant, her husband or any of the prosecution witnesses. In the event of breach the prosecution can always approach this Court for cancellation of bail. In the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 269 of 2026 dated 26.05.2026, lodged by the Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 74, 296, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the concerned Investigating Officer as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, unless his attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicant shall not enter in the area where the applicant and her relatives are residing and also not to contact the informant or any of her relatives till completion of the trial. 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. d) The applicant shall furnish his current residential addresses and mobile numbers 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 9 80ba1535.26 permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their 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. The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) mahajansb/