Rahul Bhikaji Tambe vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Rahul Bhikaji Tambe vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.7 of 2024, Devrukh Police Station, District : Ratnagiri, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; subject to conditions that he shall not enter into the limits of Taluka Sangmeshwar till conclusion of trial and shall not contact the victim.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in Crime No.7 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(J), 376(3) IPC and Sections 4, 8 & 12 POCSO Act, 2012, should be released on regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case (including that the applicant had been in jail for one year and two months), the Court was inclined to release the applicant on bail, and the Criminal Bail Application was allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Having perused the victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the Court found that the alleged act of sexual intercourse appears to be consensual.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (N. R. Borkar, J.) allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 4242 of 2024 on 15.04.2025 and directed release of Rahul Bhikaji Tambe on bail in Crime No.7 of 2024 of Devrukh Police Station, District Ratnagiri, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(J) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Perusing the victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the Court found the alleged act of sexual intercourse to appear consensual; the applicant had been in jail for one year and two months with the trial having progressed only to framing of charge. Bail was granted on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties, coupled with conditions that the applicant shall not enter the limits of Taluka Sangmeshwar till conclusion of trial and shall not contact the victim.

17-BA-4242-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4242 OF 2024

Rahul Bhikaji Tambe ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Ms. Indu Varma, Advocate for the Applicant through V.C. Ms. Komal Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr. S. S. Chaudhary, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 – State. API Shabnam Mujwar, Devrukh Police Station, Ratnagiri, present.

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 15^th APRIL, 2025

P.C.:

This is an application for regular bail.

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.7 of

2024 registered at Devrukh Police Station, District : Ratnagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(J), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The applicant and the victim got acquainted with

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date: 2025.05.23 12:03:33 +0530

each other through Instagram and they decided to marry. It is

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

17-BA-4242-2024.doc

alleged that on the date of incident which took place on 21.01.2024, there was a naming ceremony of the niece of the applicant. He thus invited the victim to his house at Devgad. It is alleged that, while the victim was at the house of the applicant, he took her to one isolated room and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Victim.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim and they were going to marry. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for about one year and two months and except framing of charge, there is no progress in the trial.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that at the relevant time the victim was hardly 15 years and 6 months old. It is submitted that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the applicant

2 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

17-BA-4242-2024.doc

may not be released on bail.

I have perused the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. The alleged act of sexual intercourse appears to be consensual. The applicant is in jail for one year and two months. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Bail Application is allowed;

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.7 of 2024 registered at Devrukh Police Station, District : Ratnagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(J), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(iii) The applicant shall not enter into the limits of Taluka Sangmeshwar till conclusion of trial.

(iv) The applicant shall not contact the victim.

(v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

3 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar