Saifulla Abutayyab Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Appellant is dissatisfied with the order dated 05^th March 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, below Exhibit-35 in Special Case No.101 of 2025, thereby rejecting the Application in connection with Crime No.0293 of 2025 dated 01^st October 2025, registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 351(1)(3), 3(5), 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS” ) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3, 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST Act” ).

¶14

Heard Mr. Narwade, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Chate, learned APP and Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. Perused the Appeal memo and copy of the charge-sheet.

¶15

Page1 of 6

¶16

Shrikant Malani

¶17

924.APEAL.198.2026.odt

¶18

At the outset, it appears that on 01st October 2025, the Informant/victim lodged a report with Ghargaon Police Station, alleging an incident dated 15^th September 2025 between 07:00 p.m. and 07:15 p.m., wherein, at the relevant time, Accused Ganesh raped her and then called the present Appellant, whereupon the Appellant came there and raped her. Based on the said report, an offence was registered.

¶19

Pursuant to the submissions before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 858/25, on 10^th February 2026, the Appellant surrendered himself before the learned Addi. Sessions Court and he was taken into custody. Pursuant to that, he moved the Bail Application for his release on bail, which was rejected vide order dated 05th March 2026; hence, he has preferred this Appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the co-accused Ganesh has already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court and the allegations levelled against the Appellant and the coaccused Ganesh are identical; therefore, on the ground of parity alone, the Appellant is entitled to bail. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the said facts and erred in rejecting the Application. During the course of arguments, he took me through the complaint, the medico-legal examination report of sexual assault, and the final opinion of the Medical Officer. Also, he pointed out paragraph No. 13 of the order dated

¶21

Page2 of 6

¶22

Shrikant Malani

¶23

924.APEAL.198.2026.odt

¶24

12^th January 2026 passed below Exhibit-10 in respect of co-accused Ganesh and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in paragraph No. 13, has categorically observed that no injuries were found on the person or private part of the victim. Also, she failed to explain the delay in filing the report and was therefore granted bail.

¶25

He further submitted that the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is also filed before the Court, and there are no criminal antecedents against the Appellant; therefore, he urged that he may be released on bail.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 strenuously opposed the Appeal contending that the offence is a serious one and the Appellant and co-accused Ganesh have committed rape on the victim acting in furtherance of common intention; therefore, they are liable for rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years. The learned APP, during the course of arguments, has taken me through the statements of witnesses Jyoti, Rushikesh, and Akshay, as well as the panchnama and transcription of the CCTV footage, and submitted that the offence is a serious one. Therefore, they urged for rejection of the Appeal.

¶27

At the outset, it appears that according to the allegations of the Informant in the complaint, the incident occurred on 15^th September 2025

¶28

Page3 of 6

¶29

Shrikant Malani

¶30

924.APEAL.198.2026.odt

¶31

between 07:00 p.m. and 07:15 p.m.; however, she did not lodge the complaint about the same immediately, but the report was lodged on 01^st October 2025. She has not given any explanation for not lodging the complaint immediately.

¶32

Similarly, in the medico-legal examination report, no injuries were found on her person or private part. The non-filing of the complaint immediately and the non-finding of injuries on her person led to an adverse inference being drawn against her averments in the complaint.

¶33

Apart from that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the co-accused Ganesh on 12^th January 2026. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph No. 13 of the said order as under:

¶34

“13izFke [kcj nk[ky gks.;kl >kysyk foyac] fiMhrsps oS|dh; rikl.kh vgokykr frP;k ‘kfjjkoj dqBsgh nq[kkir t[kek ulY;kpk mYys[k] vtZnkj vkjksih dz-1 ps oS|dh; vgokykr R;kP;k ‘kfjjkoj dqBsgh nq[kkirh t[kek ulY;kpk mYys[k] Hkj oLrhr ?kMysY;k ?kVusckcr fiMhrsus vkjMkvksjMk d:u ‘kstk&;k iktk&; kaph enr u ekx.ks; kckch fopkjkr ?ksrk] rlsp xqUg~;kpk rikl iq. kZ gksÅu nks”kkjkii«k nk[ky >kys vkgs- 2025 pk [kVyk R;kr nks”kkjksfuÜphrh gksÅu] lk{khnkjkaP;k lk{kh uksanowu U;k;fu.kZ; gks.;kl cjkp dkyko/kh ykxys- brdk dkyko/kh vtnkj@vkjkZ ihs dz-1 ;kl U;k;ky;hu dksBMhr Bso.;kps iz;kstu ukghtkehu gk fu;e vlwu dSn gk viokn vkgs- R;keqGs vVh o ‘krhZauk v/khu jkgwu R;kl tkehu eatqj dj.ks U;k;ksfpr gksbZy- lcc vtZnkj gk Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgek dye 483 P;k rjrqnh vUo;s tkehul ik= vkgs-”

¶35

¶36

It further appears that as per the allegations made in the FIR,

¶37

Page4 of 6

¶38

Shrikant Malani

¶39

924.APEAL.198.2026.odt

¶40

accused Ganesh raped her and then called the co-accused; however, the accused Ganesh has been released on bail. In such an eventuality, in my view, on the ground of parity, the Appellant is also entitled to bail.

¶41

Apart from the above, it seems that the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed in the Court. No criminal antecedents have been brought on record against the Appellant. Having considered the same, in my view, it would not be appropriate to detain the Appellant behind the bars, as the trial will take its own time.

¶42

In the light of the above discussion, in my opinion, the Appellant is entitled to bail. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶43

The Appellant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.0293 of 2025, registered with Ghargaon Police Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 351(1)(3), 3(5), 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3, 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of ₹ 60,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount on the following conditions.

¶44

(i) The Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶45

evidence in any manner till the conclusion of the Trial.

¶46

Page5 of 6

¶47

Shrikant Malani

¶48

924.APEAL.198.2026.odt

¶49