Mohith Kumar Ganapa Shetty vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Mohith Kumar Ganapa Shetty vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail on executing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: attend the concerned police station when called by the investigating officer; not tamper with, influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned; not re-associate with the victim girl through any device or in-person; inform latest residence and mobile contact details to the trial Court and Investigating Officer upon release and upon any change; cooperate with the conduct of the trial; breach entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant should be enlarged on bail in connection with C. R. No. 109 of 2024 (Badlapur Police Station (W), District Thane) for alleged offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court's answer

On a prima facie reading of the FIR, the prosecutrix (described in the order as a lady aged 35 years having two children) knew the Applicant very well from the year 2019 and resided with him for several days in the flat of the prosecutrix's friend during the incident tenure.

Ratio / Principle

The Applicant's statement about the consensual nature of the relationship, made specifically in the FIR itself, prima facie enures to the benefit of the Applicant insofar as indictment under Sections 376 and 506 IPC are concerned.

Key takeaways

Insofar as the charge under Section 377 IPC is concerned, there is nothing incriminating material stated or found from the statements recorded.ratio¶19
Per the recorded witness statements, the gifted gold ornaments, furniture and expensive gifts were given to the Applicant on his birthday celebrated by the prosecutrix in the year 2020 (relevant to the Section 420 IPC plea pressed by counsel for Respondent No. 2).ratio¶24
Prima facie, the Applicant and the prosecutrix are both well educated adults and law abiding citizens and their relationship was consensual over a long period of time.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. By order dated 04.03.2025, Milind N. Jadhav, J. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) allowed Bail Application No. 2225 of 2024 filed by Mohith Kumar Ganapa Shetty seeking enlargement on bail in C. R. No. 109 of 2024 (Badlapur Police Station (W), District Thane) for alleged offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The FIR, lodged on 16.02.2024, alleges incidents from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2023; the prosecutrix knew the Applicant since 01.01.2019 and, per the order, resided with him for several days in the flat of the prosecutrix's friend during that tenure. Three friends' statements recorded during investigation state that the two resided together and were presumed to be husband and wife; the friends did not understand the language in which the pair communicated. The Applicant himself stated the consensual nature of the relationship in the FIR, which the Court held prima facie enured to his benefit under Sections 376 and 506 IPC; as to Section 377 IPC, nothing incriminating was found in the recorded statements. When counsel for Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) pressed Section 420 IPC on account of gifted gold ornaments, furniture and expensive gifts, the Court noted witness statements showing the gifts were given on the Applicant's birthday celebrated by the prosecutrix in 2020. Investigation was complete and the chargesheet filed. Holding both parties to be well educated, law-abiding adults whose relationship was consensual over a long period, the Court found no reason for further incarceration and enlarged the Applicant on a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, with conditions (police station attendance, no tampering/contact, no re-association with the victim, disclosure of residence/mobile details, cooperation with trial, cancellation open on breach). All observations are expressly prima facie and the trial Court is to decide uninfluenced by them.