RB927808-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 808 OF 2026 Manoj s/o Malhari Somwanshi Age 40 years, Occu: Agri R/o Nideban Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur … Applicant Versus 1) The state of Maharashtra Through P.I. Police Station Udgir (Rural) Dist.Latur 2) XYZ ... Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/for Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. V. K. Kotecha, Addl. PP for the State Mr. S. R. Pande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 8th September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2/informant and also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the entire charge-sheet and most importantly, the medical papers annexed to the charge-sheet. 2. The present application is for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 130 of 2026 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station District Latur, for the offences punishable under sections 64, 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The record indicates that the present incident has taken place on 20.03.2026. Offence came to be registered on 23.03.2026 at the instance of the victim herself and the 1 of 8 2026:BHC-AUG:41573 RB927808-26 applicant came to be arrested in connection with the offence on 24.03.2026. Presently, the applicant is in judicial custody. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant who is aged about 40 years was running a small mess and was acquainted with the applicant. According to her, on 20.03.2026, at about 11.00 a.m., when the informant and her daughter were at home, the applicant came there on the pretext of having a meal. After consuming some food, he picked up a quarrel with the informant alleging that some poison has been mixed in the food. It is alleged that thereafter he forcibly took her into the bed room, made her lie on the bed and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. It is further alleged that the applicant threatened the informant that if she discloses the incident to anybody, he would kill her and would also commit rape upon her daughter. On the basis of her report, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. The applicant was thereafter arrested by the Investigating Officer. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of previous dispute between the parties. The learned Advocate invites my attention to the copy of non cognizable offence reported by the applicant against the present informant and her sister on 20.02.2025 alleging therein that on 19.02.2025, the present informant and her sister have assaulted him by referring his caste, on account of his demanding an amount of Rs.40 lakhs which was paid to the present informant. It is further submitted 2 of 8 RB927808-26 that there was monetary dispute between the parties and that the present FIR is a counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by the applicant. It is further submitted that although the alleged incident occurred on on 20.03.2026, the FIR came to be registered only on 23.03.2026 and that the delay in the present case assumes significance in the backdrop of preexisting enmity and the dispute. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 20 years, was admittedly present in the house at the relevant time. According to him, her statement does not constitute an eyewitness account of the alleged sexual assault. It is also submitted that no independent neighbour has supported the prosecution case. Reliance is further placed upon the medical examination to contend that no external injury was noticed on the person of the informant as well as on the person of the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that the surrounding circumstances rendered the prosecution version doubtful. The investigation is not yet complete and, according to the learned Advocate, the continued detention of the applicant is unwarranted. He, thus, prays that the application of the present applicant be allowed and he be released on bail. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the statement of the informant specifically attributes forcible sexual intercourse to the applicant. The daughter of the informant has also been examined during the investigation and her statement lends support to the circumstances immediately surrounding 3 of 8 RB927808-26 the occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant has four criminal antecedents. Significantly, one of those antecedents concerns an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, submitted that it is not a case where the antecedents are only unrelated or can be ignored. Apprehension is also expressed that considering the allegations of threat extended to the informant and her daughter, releasing of the applicant on bail may expose the witnesses to pressure and/or intimidation. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2/ informant adopts the submissions of the learned Addl.PP. He submits that the informant has explained the circumstances in which the FIR was not immediately registered. It is contended that after the incident, the applicant had threatened the informant with consequences not merely to herself but also to her daughter. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay cannot be viewed in isolation. He further points out that the applicants antecedents disclose his involvement in four serious crimes including an offence in the similar nature. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the investigation papers with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties. At the stage of considering bail, the court is neither expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor to record finding which may prejudice the either side at the time of trial. Nevertheless, the court is required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case and while 4 of 8 RB927808-26 doing so, consider the nature, gravity of accusation along-with criminal antecedents and possibility of repetition of the offence and likelihood of the witnesses being influenced. 9. There are undoubtedly certain circumstances that the defence would be entitled to exploit at the trial. The parties appear to have had a previous dispute. The applicant had approached the police against the informant even prior to the registration of the present crime. The time gap between the registration of the Non-cognizable offence and the present offence is almost about one year. The medical examination does not disclose any significant external injury either to the victim or to the applicant. This circumstance cannot be brushed aside. At the same time, there evidentiary effect cannot be finally determined in the bail proceedings. 10. he submission based on the presence of the 20-year-old daughter in the house also requires to be considered in its proper perspective. Her statement indicates that she was present in the house and that there was a quarrel preceding the incident. She further states that, when she called out to her mother after the latter had taken the victim inside, the door was not opened. She speaks about the circumstances in which her mother emerged thereafter. Thus, though the daughter cannot be treated as an eyewitness to the actual act alleged to have taken place inside the room, her statement is relevant to the events immediately preceding and following the alleged incident. Whether that evidence ultimately establishes the prosecution case is a 5 of 8 RB927808-26 matter for trial. Equally, absence of injury by itself cannot, at this stage, be treated sufficient to discard the allegations of forcible intercourse. The informant is an adult woman, her age is 40 years and cannot furnish the presumption either for or against the possibility of forcible forcible sexual assault. The issue has to be determined from the evidence and surrounding circumstances and not upon assumptions concerning the age or physical capacity of the prosecutrix. 11. The delay in registration of the FIR also cannot be considered in isolation. The prosecution alleges that the applicant threatened not only the informant but also her daughter. The informant has offered an explanation concerning the circumstances in which she approached the police. Whether that explanation is ultimately acceptable is a matter of evidence. At this stage, the interval of about 3 days is not of such character that it would demolish the prosecution case. What assumes considerable significance for the purpose of present application is the criminal antecedents of the applicant. The material placed before the court shows his involvement in previous four crimes. One of them is Crime No. 360 of 2024 registered with Vivekanandnagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The remaining antecedents also concerns the offence registered at Udgir (Rural) Police Station. Thus, it is not a case of solitary previous offence having no bearing whatsoever upon the assessment required to be made while considering the bail. 12. In the case of Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 8 RB927808-26 825 of 2026, decided on 11.02.2026), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that criminal antecedents constitute a material consideration in the adjudication of bail and cannot be ignored while assessing the possibility of repetition of the offence, interference with witnesses, and the overall suitability of releasing an accused on bail. At the same time, antecedents cannot be treated as an automatic or absolute bar to the grant of bail. They have to be evaluated along with the nature of the present accusation and the other material on record. 13. Applying those principles to the present case, the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse and the surrounding circumstances will have to be tested before the trial court by leading evidence. At the stage of bail, taking into consideration the statement of the victim’s daughter and also the fact that there is previous existing enmity and further more, the medical evidence, which is absolutely silent of any kind of injury upon either victim or the applicant on account of resistance while committing forcible sexual intercourse persuades this court to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant, in connection with Crime no. 130 of 2026 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station District Latur, for the offences punishable under sections 64, 64(1) and 351(2) 7 of 8 RB927808-26 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. (iii)) The applicant shall not enter the Udgir Taluka till the evidence of victim as well as her daughter is recorded before the trial court, except for attending the trial or with prior permission of the Trial Court. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or contact with the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number and address to the investigating officer. (vi) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the trial. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 8 of 8