Court distinguished X (Minor) and held that applicant's age (19), victim's age (15), and long consensual relationship make this a fit case for bail on conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000 each with one solvent surety of like amount on conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:10987
28-BA.425-24.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
28 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 425 OF 2024
ARUN ANANDA BAILKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S. APP for Respondents-State : Ms. S. S. Joshi. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. I. K. Wagh (Appointed).
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 18.06.2024
PER COURT :-
28-BA.425-24.odt
2
treatment. The mother of victim herself gave her Mangalsutra for paying medical expenses. The victim had stolen golden ornaments from the house and gave it to the applicant. It seems that something happened which is not coming before the Court that broke their relationship.
28-BA.425-24.odt
3
decision. She never complained against the applicant till lodging the report that he forcefully did sex with her. It is a clear case of love affair. Considering the facts of the case of X (Minor) (supra) are different from the facts of this case. The applicant was only 19 years old. The investigation has been completed. The facts of the case and the manner in which the dispute arose, this is a fit case to grant bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
28-BA.425-24.odt
4
(iii) The Secretary, High Court Legal Services, SubCommittee, Aurangabad do pay the legal fees to the learned counsel Mr. Wagh appointed for respondent No.3, as per the schedule.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
vmk/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is justified in a case of forceful sex/rape given the consensual nature of the relationship and age of applicant.
Whether the facts here differ sufficiently from X (Minor) to override statutory presumption of force.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and anotherDistinguished¶19
X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another ; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194
X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and anotherDistinguished¶20
X (Minor) Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another
Arun Ananda Bailkar
The State of Maharashtra
S. G. Mehare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
