-1- BA-906-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.906 OF 2026 Karan S/o. Bhimsing Rajput, Age : 23 years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Satana, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. … Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Vaijapur Police Station, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. X.Y.Z. … Respondents ..… Mr. Rajendra N. Chavan h/f. Mr. Santosh A. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed through Legal Aid) ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.84 of 2026 registered with Vaijapur Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The applicant is aged about 23 years and is in custody since 3rd February, 2026. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The prosecution 2026:BHC-AUG:42023 -2- BA-906-2026 has invoked Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 30th January, 2026 the mother of the victim approached Vaijapur Police Station reporting that her minor daughter had left the house and could not be traced. The crime was initially registered against an unknown person for kidnapping. The victim subsequently appeared before the police. In her first statement, she stated that her parents were proposing her marriage with another boy; that she was unwilling to marry him and, being upset, had left the house without informing anybody. She stated that she had remained at a temple and thereafter approached the police station. 3. On 2nd February, 2026, however, a supplementary statement of the victim came to be recorded. In that statement she disclosed that she had been acquainted with the applicant for about a year; that approximately two months earlier he had given her a mobile phone and they used to speak with each other; and that on the relevant day the applicant telephoned her and proposed that -3- BA-906-2026 they should leave and marry. According to this version, the applicant also caused her to speak with his mother. She thereafter met the applicant and travelled with him for some distance. It is in this supplementary statement that an allegation of sexual intercourse with the applicant came to be made. The further narration indicates that the applicant thereafter asked her to proceed towards Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and stated that he would join her, but ultimately did not do so. The victim thereafter travelled on her own and ultimately approached the police. These features of the prosecution case are also substantially reflected in the applicant's synopsis and bail pleadings. 4. Significantly, a statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 2nd February, 2026. In that statement, though she narrated the telephone conversation with the applicant, the proposal to leave and marry and her journey to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, there is no allegation of sexual intercourse or sexual assault by the applicant. The record further shows that another statement under Section 183 of the BNSS came to be recorded on 12th February, 2026. Even therein, the allegation of sexual intercourse does not find mention. The bail application specifically relies upon this circumstance. -4- BA-906-2026 5. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that the prosecution case has undergone material changes from one statement to another. The first version was that the victim had voluntarily left her house because she was unwilling to marry the person selected by her parents. The allegation of sexual intercourse surfaced only in the supplementary police statement. It is submitted that such allegation is conspicuously absent from the statements recorded before the Magistrate. Learned counsel further points out that the material itself indicates a pre-existing relationship between the applicant and the victim and regular telephonic communication between them. He further relies upon the discrepancy in the documents concerning the age of the victim. According to the defence, one document forming part of the charge- sheet records the date of birth as 21st February, 2009, whereas another record relied upon by the prosecution indicates a substantially different age. It is therefore submitted that, without seeking a final determination of age at this stage, the inconsistency is relevant while considering whether continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and his further detention would serve no investigative purpose. -5- BA-906-2026 6. Learned APP opposed the application. It is submitted that the victim was admittedly below eighteen years and therefore, any purported consent is legally immaterial. The supplementary statement contains a specific allegation of sexual intercourse and, having regard to the age of the victim, the offences alleged are serious. It is further submitted that the applicant and the victim belong to the same vicinity and, if released, the possibility of the applicant approaching the victim or influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. The victim and her parents have also opposed release of the applicant. The learned APP therefore submits that no case for bail is made out. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the chargesheet. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the Court is not expected, while deciding an application for bail, to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or to record findings which may prejudice either side at the trial. The material is required to be examined only to ascertain whether continued pre- trial detention of the applicant is justified. 8. The first circumstance which assumes significance is the way the prosecution case has developed. The FIR originated from the disappearance of the victim. When the victim was traced, her -6- BA-906-2026 initial explanation was that her parents intended to arrange her marriage against her wishes and that she had therefore left the house voluntarily. The supplementary statement subsequently introduced the applicant and an allegation of sexual intercourse. However, when the victim's statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS on 2nd February, 2026, the allegation of sexual intercourse did not find place therein. The subsequent statement before the Magistrate dated 12th February, 2026 also requires consideration in the same context. At this stage, it would neither be proper to discard the supplementary statement nor to determine which of the versions is truthful. Nevertheless, the material variations between the successive versions are circumstances which legitimately enter the prima facie assessment for bail. 9. The material also indicates that the victim and the applicant were acquainted prior to the incident, were in telephonic contact and that the victim travelled from one place to another substantially on her own. These circumstances cannot be treated as establishing legal consent to sexual intercourse. If the victim was below eighteen years, consent by itself would not answer an offence under the POCSO Act. At the same time, while considering bail, the Court is not prohibited from noticing the surrounding -7- BA-906-2026 circumstances and the nature of the relationship disclosed by the prosecution material itself. 10. The question concerning the age of the victim also needs to be approached with caution. There appear to be inconsistent documents in the charge-sheet regarding her date of birth. It would be impermissible in the present proceeding to pronounce upon the genuineness or correctness of one document in preference to another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh reported in 2026 SCC OnlineSC 40 : 2026 INSC 47, has held that determination of the age of a victim is a matter for trial and that, where the question of age arises at the stage of bail, the Court may only take a prima facie view from the documents placed before it and should not embark upon an adjudication of their correctness, which would amount to a mini- trial. Therefore, the discrepancy is noticed only as one of the circumstances relevant at this stage and no final opinion regarding the age of the victim is expressed. 11. The provisions of the Atrocities Act have subsequently been added to the crime. However, the present application is for regular bail after arrest and not for anticipatory bail. The statutory embargo under Sections 18 and 18-A, which operates in the field of -8- BA-906-2026 pre-arrest bail, does not by itself prohibit consideration of regular bail. The allegations under the special enactment will necessarily be tested at the trial. Nothing stated in this order shall be understood as expressing a concluded opinion upon the ingredients of those offences. 12. The applicant has been in custody since 3rd February, 2026 and has thus undergone incarceration for more than seven months. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. His custodial interrogation is no longer required. The prosecution does not point out any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The apprehension that the applicant may approach the victim or influence witnesses is legitimate, particularly since the parties are from the same vicinity, but that concern can, in the facts of the case, be addressed by imposing stringent conditions including a prohibition against entering the locality where the victim resides and against contacting her or her family in any manner. 13. The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the offences alleged and of the protective object underlying the POCSO Act. Seriousness of the accusation, however, cannot be considered in isolation. The Court must simultaneously consider the nature of -9- BA-906-2026 the material collected, the successive versions of the victim, the stage of investigation, the period already spent in custody, antecedents of the accused, the possibility of his presence being secured at trial and the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice. In the peculiar facts of the present case, continued incarceration of the applicant after completion of investigation is not necessary merely because the offences alleged carry severe punishment. 14. The observations made above are confined strictly to the consideration of the present bail application. The learned Special Judge shall decide the trial independently and uninfluenced by any prima facie observation made herein. 15. In view of the above, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant – Karan Bhimsing Rajput shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.84 of 2026 registered with Vaijapur Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. -10- BA-906-2026 (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact, communicate with or approach the victim or her parents/family members, whether personally, telephonically, electronically, through social media or through any third person. (iv) The applicant shall not enter the village/locality in which the victim ordinarily resides, except for attending the Court proceedings, until conclusion of the trial, unless prior permission of the Special Court is obtained. (v) The applicant shall not threaten, induce or influence any prosecution witness or tamper with the prosecution evidence. (vi) The applicant shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer as well as to the learned Special Court and shall intimate any change thereof in advance. (vii) The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the learned Special Court regularly and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. (viii) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale