Mariappa Nityanand Devendra vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

Mariappa Nityanand Devendra vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed; applicant ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.411 of 2023 (Trombay Police Station) upon furnishing a Personal Bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions: (i) no direct or indirect contact, influence, threat or approach towards the prosecutrix or any witness; (ii) reporting once a month at the concerned police station on the first Monday of every calendar month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon till conclusion of trial; (iii) no departure from the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission; violation entitles the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in Crime Register No.411 of 2023 registered at Trombay Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 376D, 328, 506(2), 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant is in custody since 1 September 2023, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the investigation is complete; there is no material before the Court showing that the applicant attempted to tamper with evidence or influence any witness while in custody.

Ratio / Principle

On prima facie examination of the chargesheet and the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the version of the prosecutrix as it stands presently does not show overt and clear use of physical force or any act of resistance during the alleged incidents.

Key takeaways

The incident allegedly occurred in June 2023 but the complaint was filed only after a relative noticed a video on the internet in August 2023; this delay, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, prima facie suggests that there may have been some degree of implicit consent.ratio¶7
Whether the said acts were truly consensual or were the result of coercion or undue influence is a matter which must be adjudicated during the course of trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and is not finally decided at the bail stage.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL LAW — REGULAR BAIL — Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 376D, 328, 506(2), 323, 504 and 114, IPC read with Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Crime Register No.411/2023, Trombay Police Station). Prosecutrix, the applicant's stepmother, alleged that her husband compelled her into sexual acts with his sons (the applicant and his brother) and recorded/uploaded objectionable videos on the internet, discovered in August 2023 when a relative sent a WhatsApp message. Held, granting bail: the prosecutrix's statement contained no categorical assertion of direct physical force or active resistance; the incident allegedly occurred in June 2023 but the FIR was lodged only on 1 September 2023 after a third party noticed a video online, and such unexplained delay is a factor that cannot be ignored at the pre-trial stage — the delay prima facie suggesting some degree of implicit consent, though whether the acts were consensual or coerced must be adjudicated at trial. Applicant in custody since 01-09-2023; charge-sheet filed; investigation complete; no material of tampering or witness influence; trial expected to take considerable time and prolonged detention would cause undue hardship. Bail granted on Personal Bond of Rs. 50,000 with solvent sureties, subject to strict conditions (no contact with prosecutrix/witnesses; monthly police reporting on first Monday, 10 a.m.–12 noon; no travel outside Trial Court jurisdiction without permission; breach permits cancellation). Observations expressly confined to the bail application and not to be treated as opinion on merits. (Amit Borkar, J.; decided 16-06-2025)