Dismissed¶29

Xyz (Complainant) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Karanja Lad (City) Dist. Washim and 3 Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2025APPLN/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail - cancellation refused; s.18 bar under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act held duly considered by Sessions Court; FIR No. 189/2024 alleging rape on pretext of marriage by married accused; prima facie consensual relationship; investigation complete, charge-sheet permission sought in pending quashing application APL No. 576/2024 before Division Bench; complainant's applications rejected; Nagpur Bench; Rajnish R. Vyas, J.; order dated 25/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the FIR reveals the 36-year-old divorcee victim knew the accused was a married man and the continued relationship prima facie appears consensual; since no prima facie case was made out, protection from arrest was granted to the non-applicants/accused. ¶20

Xyz (Complainant) vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Karanja Lad (City) Dist. Washim and 3 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with (cancel) the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court on 14/03/2024 to the accused in Crime No. 189/2024, in view of the contention that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Special Act.

¶12

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Sessions Court considered the scope of Section 18 of the Special Act while granting anticipatory bail, and considering the parameters it cannot be said that the Sessions Court failed to take the relevant material into consideration.

¶27

Key takeaways

The investigation in the crime stands completed (the Investigating Officer has applied for permission to file the charge sheet in the accuseds' pending quashing application APL No. 576/2024 before the Division Bench), and the parameters for cancellation of bail are totally different from those for grant of bail.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Applications (APPLN) Nos. 57 and 58 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Rajnish R. Vyas, J.; decided 25/09/2025) were filed by X. Y. Z., the original complainant in Crime/FIR No. 189/2024 (lodged 02/03/2024 under IPC ss. 323, 376(2)(n), 417, 504, 506 r/w s. 34 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ss. 3(1)(w), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va)), challenging the Sessions Court's order dated 14/03/2024 granting anticipatory bail to the accused (including one 'Ajay'). Counsel contended the bar under Section 18 of the Special Act precluded anticipatory bail. The Court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a consensual continuing relationship - the 36-year-old divorcee complainant knew the accused was married - that no prima facie case was made out, that the Sessions Court had considered the scope of s.18 and the relevant material, that the investigation was complete (the IO having sought permission to file the charge sheet in pending APL No. 576/2024 before the Division Bench) and that the parameters for cancellation of bail are totally different. Declining to interfere, the Judge rejected both applications as devoid of merit.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9875

¶2

1 31-BA-58-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 58 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 57 OF 2024

¶5

X. Y. Z. (THE COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 189/2024)

¶6

Vrs.

¶7

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Shri P. S. Thakur, Advocate for applicant. Ms. T. H. Khan, A. P. P. for Non-applicant No.1.

¶10

Shri Dhruv Sirpurkar, Advocate h/f Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Non-applicant Nos.2 to 3 in APPLN No.58/2024.

¶11

CORAM: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 25/09/2025.

¶12

In both these applications, original complainant has challenged the order dated 14/03/2024 in First Information Report No.189/2024 granting anticipatory bail to the accused in crime.

¶13

I have heard Shri Paresh Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dhruv Sirpurkar, learned counsel for non-applicant Nos.2 and 3.

¶14

Ms. Khan, learned APP has advanced arguments for the State.

¶15

Considered the record and arguments advanced by the parties. First Information Report is lodged on 02/03/2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 417, 504, 506

¶16

2 31-BA-58-2024.odt

¶17

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶18

According to the victim, she is 36 years old and is a divorcee. In First Information Report, she alleged that the accused Ajay was a married person and under the pretext of performing marriage, victim / applicant was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse on various occasions. She has also alleged that on one occasion, even the foetus was aborted. According to her, the act committed by the accused persons is serious and she was abused by referring her caste.

¶19

By inviting my attention to the order passed by the Sessions Court, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is bar under Section 18 of the Special Act and therefore, anticipatory bail should not have been granted.

¶20

Perusal of the First Information Report, reveals that the victim was a divorcee and 36 years old lady. She was aware of the fact that accused was a married person and therefore, there was obstacle in performing the marriage. The continued relationship prima facie also shows that it is consensus.

¶21

Be that as it may, while granting anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Court has considered scope of

¶22

3 31-BA-58-2024.odt

¶23

Section 18 of the Special Act and has granted anticipatory bail.

¶24

Since prima facie case was not made out, protection from arrest was granted to the non-applicants / accused.

¶25

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court.

¶26

At this stage, Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel has brought to my notice that the accused persons have preferred Criminal Application (APL) No.576/2024 for quashment before the Division Bench of this Court in which an application is filed by the Investigating Officer praying for grant of permission to file charge sheet. It is thus crystal clear that the investigation in the crime is completed. The parameters for cancellation of bail are totally different.

¶27

Considering the parameters, it cannot be said that the Sessions Court has not taken into consideration the relevant material.

¶28

In that view of the matter, applications being devoid of merit are liable to be rejected.

¶29

Accordingly, applications are rejected.

¶30

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.]

¶31

Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2025 10:48:44

Xyz (Complainant) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Karanja Lad (City) Dist. Washim and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xyz (Complainant) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Karanja Lad (City) Dist. Washim and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director, Dharmpal Ramkumar Agrawal Vs Manish Mohanlal Thakkar

Jugal Chainsukh Loya vs State of Mah. at the Instance of Shir Mc. Pawar Food Safety Officer Food Drug Admin. Nagpur Another

Shrikant Mahadeo Ghate vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Shegaon (Bu) Tq. Warora and Dist. Chandrapur

Kusumbai W/O. Raosaheb Dange and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sanjay Wamanrao Wankhade Vs Sau. Mamta Sanjay Wankhade

Pankaj S/O. Radheshyam Joshi Vs Jiwesh S/O Rajesh Rai