04-ABA-117-2026.odt Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2026 Yogesh S/o Rambhau Rathod ...Applicant V/s. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Adv. Manikrao Wandkhade i/b Anil Palaspagar, Rahul Salve, for the Applicant. Adv. Prasanna P Malashe, APP for the Respondent – State. Adv. D. J. Shegul a/w Vilas Bambarde, for the Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________ CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard Advocate Manikrao Wandkhade, learned counsel for the Applicant, Advocate Prasanna P Malashe, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Advocate D. J. Shegul, for the Respondent No.2. 2. The applicant has filed the instant application seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 850 of 2025 dated 02.11.2025 registered with Kurar Village, Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 351(2),351(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Sections 4(1) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 1/5 04-ABA-117-2026.odt 3. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered on the basis of a report lodged by the respondent no.2 alleging that she had known the applicant since they were relatives and when they met in Mumbai, they started meeting with each other. She has alleged that the applicant had told her that he loves her and on 24.09.2025, the applicant called her to his room situated at Goregaon S. T. Stop and at that time gave her a promise of marriage and established physical relations with her. It is alleged in the report that the applicant repeatedly established physical relations with the complainant and thereafter refused to marry her and, therefore, she lodged the report. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations of false promise of marriage are baseless since the applicant had the intention to marry the complainant and the FIR was lodged on account of some misunderstanding. It is submitted that the applicant has in fact married the complainant on 19.05.2026 and the applicant and the complainant are now residing together as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that after considering the merits of the matter, this Court had granted interim protection by order dated 16.01.2026 and the applicant has not misused the liberty and, therefore, prays for confirmation of the interim protection. 2/5 04-ABA-117-2026.odt 5. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the applicant invited attention to an affidavit dated 03.07.2026 filed by the complainant, in which it is specifically stated that the complainant is major and that she was in a relationship with the applicant and further that she has married the applicant on 19.05.2026 and both of them are residing together. In the said affidavit, she has specifically stated that she has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited attention to the photographs showing the marriage of the applicant with the complainant. 6. As against this, learned APP has opposed the application. He submitted that the offences alleged are serious in nature and investigation into the offence is going on. However, as regards the contention that the complainant has married with the applicant, learned APP submitted on instructions from the Investigating Officer that the said contentions are not disputed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / original complainant also submitted that the complainant has married the applicant and by pointing out the affidavit dated 03.07.2026, he submitted that the complainant has no objection to the confirmation of the interim protection granted by this Court. 3/5 04-ABA-117-2026.odt 8. Perused the FIR and the documents placed on record, including the affidavit dated 03.07.2026. It has to be noted that the respondent no.2 is personally present in the Court along with her lawyer, who has confirmed the contention that the complainant and the applicant have got married. 9. It has to be noted that the allegations in the FIR show that the complainant and the applicant were having love relations. Although the allegations are made by the complainant and the offence was registered against the applicant, the subsequent development of marriage between the complainant and the applicant cannot be ignored. Pertinent to note, the complainant along with her lawyer is present in the Court and learned counsel for the complainant has confirmed the contention that the parties have got married and they are residing together. 10. Having regard to the overall circumstances, the custodial interrogation of this applicant need not be insisted upon. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has misused the interim protection granted by this Court by order dated 16.01.2026. Therefore, the interim protection needs to be confirmed, subject to certain conditions. 11. Hence, I pass the following order. 4/5 04-ABA-117-2026.odt : ORDER : (i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of this applicant in Crime No. 850 of 2025 dated 02.11.2025 registered with Kurar Village, Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Sections 4(1) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, he be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount. (iii) The applicant is directed to attend the police station as and when called upon by the investigating agency. (iv) The applicant shall not pressurize any of the prosecution witnesses and shall extend cooperation during investigation and trial. 11. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 5/5