1 923BA1536.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1536 OF 2026 Nitesh Ram Chavan Age : 23 years, Occu. Service, R/o. At Post Tabela, Ta. Lonar, Dist. Buldhana. ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent ... Mr. Sunil B. Surse a/w Mr. Jitenddra S. Jain - Advocates for Applicant Mr. S. A. Gaikwad - APP for the State ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3264 OF 2026 IN BA/1536/2026 ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3264 OF 2026 : - 1. The Application seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor is allowed and disposed of. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1536 OF 2026 : - 2. By the present Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [In short “BNSS”], the Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0287 of 2026, 2026:BHC-AUG:41239 2 923BA1536.2026.odt registered with CIDCO Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’]. 3. The record indicates that the Applicant’s first bail application was rejected. However, thereafter, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet came to be filed. Following the filing of the charge sheet, the applicant again preferred an application before the learned Trial Court, which also came to be rejected. The applicant has thereafter approached this Court. The applicant was arrested on 13th May 2026 and has been in custody ever since. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant and the Applicant became acquainted with each other while both were preparing for police recruitment. They developed a friendship, and the Informant would occasionally visit the Applicant with food. Thereafter, the Applicant was selected for the S.R.P.F. According to the Informant, in October 2024, the Applicant represented to her that, since they belong to the same community, they would marry after the completion of his training. It is alleged that, on 18th October 2024, when the Informant visited the Applicant’s room, the Applicant established a physical relationship with her against her will. Thereafter, he allegedly continued to establish physical relations with her from time to time on the promise 3 923BA1536.2026.odt of marriage. It is further alleged that the Applicant told the Informant that he had taken her private photographs and subsequently threatened to make those photographs viral when she insisted upon marriage. The alleged relationship continued until 22nd December 2025, and the FIR was subsequently lodged on 11th May 2026. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that the Informant was admittedly a major throughout the relevant period and that the material on record itself demonstrates a long-standing relationship between the parties. It is submitted that both the Applicant and the Informant were acquainted with each other well before the alleged incident and that the relationship continued for a considerable period. He also invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, submits that further custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. He further submits that the Applicant is 23 years of age, is serving as a Constable in the S.R.P.F., and has no criminal antecedents. 6. The applicant undertakes to remain present before this Court and the Trial Court and not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. The record indeed discloses that no criminal antecedents have been reported against him. 4 923BA1536.2026.odt 7. The learned APP, however, opposes the application. It is submitted that the allegations are serious and include repeated sexual relations on the promise of marriage, as well as a threat to circulate the private photographs of the informant. The prosecution apprehends that the applicant, being a Police Constable, may, if released, influence the informant or the prosecution witnesses. A similar apprehension weighed with the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the earlier application. 8. It is important to note the development that took place in the Courtroom during the hearing of the application. The informant/victim, who is personally present before the Court and is represented by her learned Advocate, directly interacted with the Court and stated that she has no objection to the Applicant being released on bail and that she intends to marry the Applicant. The learned Counsel for the Applicant, upon taking instructions from the father of the Applicant, who is also present in the Court, stated that the Applicant is also willing to marry the informant upon his release. 9. Though the learned APP opposes the application, stating that the conduct of the Applicant does not justify the acceptance of the said undertaking, for the reason that, initially, during his preparation for police recruitment, the Applicant promised the complainant to marry her 5 923BA1536.2026.odt and, on that pretext, maintained a physical relationship with her. However, after securing the post of Constable in the S.R.P.F., he refused to marry her. According to the learned APP, the conduct of the Applicant speaks volumes. He apprehends that, after obtaining bail, the Applicant may again refuse to marry the complainant. Therefore, the learned APP submits that the application should not be considered on the basis of the undertaking given by the father of the Applicant. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the investigation papers. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that the Court is concerned, at this stage, only with the question of the Applicant’s release on bail. The Court is neither called upon to determine whether the physical relationship between the parties was consensual, nor to finally determine whether the ingredients of Sections 64(2)(m) or 69 of the BNS are established. These issues will necessarily have to be proved by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court. Equally, the present order cannot be construed as compelling either of the parties to marry, or as making the proposed marriage a condition for the grant of bail. 11. Certain circumstances, however, are relevant for the limited purpose of bail. The informant was a major throughout the entire period in question. The material on record indicates that the Applicant and the 6 923BA1536.2026.odt informant knew each other, as they were preparing for police recruitment and had developed a relationship. The allegations themselves span the period from October 2024 until 22nd December 2025. Significantly, the material placed on record also refers to a consent affidavit executed by the Applicant and the informant on 29th January 2026, in the presence of witnesses, regarding their proposed marriage. According to the said document, the Applicant stated that he would marry the informant after completion of his training and would not marry any other person. 12. At this stage, the distinction between a promise that was false from its inception and a subsequent failure to honour a genuine promise assumes significance. There is no doubt that the allegation concerning the first incident, dated 18 October 2024, namely, that it occurred against the will of the informant, is undoubtedly serious and cannot be brushed aside merely because the parties subsequently continued their relationship. However, seriousness of the accusation is one of the relevant considerations and cannot by itself justify continued pre-trial incarceration in every case. The investigation is already complete and the charge sheet has been filed. The Applicant is therefore no longer required for custodial interrogation. He has no reported criminal antecedents and is stated to be employed with S.R.P.F. His presence during trial can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. 7 923BA1536.2026.odt The learned Session Judge had declined bail principally on the apprehension that the Applicant may pressurize or threaten the informant and that there may be danger to her life if he is released on bail. 12.1. The situation before this Court is materially different. The informant is personally present before the Court, though represented by her Advocate. She has unequivocally stated that she has no objection to the Applicant being released on bail. The apprehension expressed earlier, therefore, considerably loses its force. Nevertheless, appropriate conditions can adequately safeguard the informant and the prosecution witnesses. 13. It is necessary to reiterate that the informant's consent to the Applicant being released on bail, or the stated intention of the parties to marry, cannot result in the compounding or effacement of the alleged offence, nor is the Court granting bail as a consideration for marriage. The subsequent stand of the informant is being noticed only as one of the circumstances relevant to the assessment of the apprehension of intimidation or interference with the prosecution, whereas the offences alleged, if ultimately established, remain entirely open for determination by the Trial Court. Having regard to the age of the parties, the nature and duration of their relationship as emerging 8 923BA1536.2026.odt from the record, the subsequent document concerning the marriage, and the subsequent statement made by the father of the Applicant, along with the condition that the Applicant shall file an undertaking before this Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of his release, stating that he is ready and willing to marry the informant, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER [i] The application stands allowed. [ii] The Applicant, Nitesh Ram Chavan, be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 0287 of 2026, registered at CIDCO Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand] with one or two sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions:- [a] The Applicant, after release from the custody, shall file an undertaking in this Court within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter clearly reiterating the oral undertaking given to this Court on his behalf at the time when the application for bail is being considered. [b] The Applicant is put to notice that, in the event the undertaking is not filed or the Applicant has no intention to marry, the application for cancellation of bail will be reconsidered and decided on its own merits. 9 923BA1536.2026.odt [c] The Applicant shall attend the CIDCO Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, on the first Monday of every month. [d] The Applicant shall not, in any manner whatsoever, tamper with the prosecution evidence. 14. The Application stands disposed of. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 18:46:16