[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Rahul Vijay Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 August, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:36028
1-ba110-2025.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2025
Rahul Vijay Shinde ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Ritesh Thobde (through V.C.) with Ms. Zubi Ansari
for the applicant.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for respondent No.1-State.
ATUL GANESH
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2025.08.21
19:02:48
Ms. Aneesa Cheema for respondent No.2-victim
+0530
(appointed as Legal Aid).
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 21, 2025
P.C.:
1. By the present application filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), the applicant seeks
his release on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.24
of 2023, registered with Kalyan Taluka Police Station. The offences
alleged against the applicant are punishable under Sections
376(A), 376(B), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC“) and also under Sections 4, 6, 17, and 42 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO
Act“).
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, who is
working as a caretaker at Shrilochan Bal Vikas Kendra, Titwala,
lodged a report alleging that accused No.3 – Preeti, was working
1
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
as Project Head at the said institution. The victim girl was a
student of that centre. It is alleged that on or about 12 October
2022, between 10.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., the present applicant
(accused No.1), who was also working in the said institution,
called the victim to his office and committed forcible sexual
intercourse with her. This act was not an isolated incident but
allegedly continued for a period of one month. During this period,
the applicant also threatened the victim with dire consequences,
including killing her, if she disclosed the incident to anybody. It is
further the case of the prosecution that though the informant
reported the matter to accused Nos.2 and 3, they failed to take any
steps against the applicant.
3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
has drawn attention to the order dated 26 March 2024 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Bail Application
No.1733 of 2023. By the said order, the Trial Court was directed to
expedite the trial, with liberty to the applicant to renew his request
for bail if the trial did not commence within six months. It is
submitted that despite such directions, the trial has not
commenced. The applicant has been in custody since 14 January
2023. Learned Advocate submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated. He further points out that the ossification test
conducted by the prosecution indicated the age of the victim
between 10 to 14 years, and that the medical report does not
conclusively support the allegations of the prosecution. It is argued
that, considering the long incarceration of the applicant and the
fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, the
2
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. In support of his
submissions, he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Hussain & Another vs. Union of India [2017 SCC
OnLine SC 235]; Balvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2024
SCC OnLine SC 4354]; as well as judgments of this Court in
Babaso @ Babasaheb Jalinder Balshankar vs. State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Bail Application No.2372 of 2024, decided on 12
December 2024) and Ravi Suryakant Lagade vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No.1569 of 2025, decided
on 28 April 2025).
4. Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State and the
learned Advocate appointed to represent the victim opposed the
application. They submit that the present application being the
second one, unless there is any material change in circumstance,
the applicant cannot claim bail as a matter of right. They point out
that the victim, at the time of the incident, was only nine years old
and a student at the institution where the applicant was working
as caretaker. On 12 October 2022, the applicant allegedly called
the victim into his office and committed forcible sexual intercourse
upon her, which continued for about a month. He also threatened
her with death if she revealed the incident. It was only after a new
caretaker was appointed that the matter came to light and a report
was lodged. The FIR contains sufficient details of the acts
attributed to the applicant.
5. It is further submitted that the institution itself is established
for the welfare of children from economically weaker backgrounds,
who are provided food, clothing, and education free of cost. The
3
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
applicant, being in a position of trust, has gravely misused his
authority. The statement of the victim stands supported not only by
her medical examination but also by her statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the documents on record
clearly indicate that the date of birth of the victim is 31 March
2013, thereby establishing that she was below ten years of age at
the relevant time. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the
available material, they pray for rejection of the bail application.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
Advocate for the applicant, the learned APP for the State, and the
learned Advocate appearing for the victim. I have also perused the
FIR, statements of the victim, medical report, and other material
placed on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that this is the second bail
application preferred by the applicant. The earlier application was
considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, which, by order
dated 26 March 2024, had directed the Trial Court to expedite the
trial with liberty to the applicant to renew the request for bail only
if the trial did not commence within six months. The said liberty
does not mean that bail has to be granted automatically; the Court
is required to examine whether there is any substantial change in
circumstances and whether the nature of accusations and
supporting material justify release.
8. The allegations in the present case are of serious nature. The
victim is a girl child who, as per documents, was born on 31 March
2013. Thus, on the date of the alleged incident, she was hardly
4
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
nine years old. The applicant was working as caretaker in the
institution which was meant for the welfare and education of poor
children. Instead of protecting the children, the applicant is alleged
to have betrayed the trust and subjected the victim to repeated
sexual assault for almost a month. The allegations also show that
he threatened the child with dire consequences if she disclosed the
incident. Such conduct, if proved, strikes at the very root of
morality and shakes the conscience of the society.
9. The submission of the applicant that the ossification test
shows age between 10 to 14 years does not carry much weight,
when documentary proof of the date of birth is available on
record. Medical opinion about age cannot override the
documentary evidence. Further, the victim’s statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. is consistent and gives a detailed account of the
acts committed by the applicant. The medical examination report
may not conclusively prove the offence but does lend support to
the prosecution case.
10. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the
applicant on the judgments cited is clearly distinguishable on facts.
In those cases, the main consideration before the Court was the
delay in commencement of the trial and the long period of custody
suffered by the accused. However, the present matter stands on a
different footing. The allegations here are under the POCSO Act
and relate to a minor girl of tender age. In such cases, the Court
cannot view the delay in isolation, but has to keep in mind the
gravity of the offence, the position of responsibility and trust held
by the accused, and the extreme vulnerability of the child victim.
5
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
The applicant, being caretaker in the institution, was in a position
where children were expected to feel safe and protected. Misuse of
such fiduciary position by committing sexual assault upon a child
shakes the confidence of society in such institutions and has far-
reaching consequences.
11. It is true that under Article 21 of the Constitution, every
accused has a fundamental right to speedy trial, and prolonged
incarceration without progress of trial may weigh in favour of
grant of bail. But this right has to be harmoniously balanced with
the equally important right of the victim, particularly a child, to
live with dignity, safety, and psychological security. When
allegations involve repeated sexual assault on a girl child of nine
years, coupled with threats to her life, the balance tilts heavily
towards protecting the victim and ensuring that the accused does
not misuse liberty to influence, threaten, or traumatize the victim
further.
12. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the age of the
victim, the material collected by the prosecution, and the fact that
this Court has already once considered the applicant’s request, I
am of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail. Mere
delay in commencement of trial, in absence of any other mitigating
circumstance, cannot tilt the balance in favour of the applicant in
such heinous offences.
13. Hence, the following order is passed:
(i) The Criminal Bail Application stands rejected.
6
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
1-ba110-2025.doc
(ii) It is clarified that the Trial Court shall make all
endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the
earliest.
(iii) Observations made herein are prima facie and limited
to the consideration of bail. The Trial Court shall not be
influenced by these observations while deciding the matter
on merits.
14. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
7
::: Uploaded on – 21/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 21/08/2025 21:50:00 :::
[ad_2]
Source link