Highlighting the fact that multiple decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial especially in a consensual relationship, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man in a rape case where he was accused of impregnating the girl twice.

The High Court was considering an Application filed under Section 439 of CrPC seeking Regular Bail in a case registered under Sections 376, 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section 4, 6, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav stated, “Applicant has made out a strong case for grant of bail since a boy and girl of similar age group involved in a long standing love relationship by consensus does not make it an offence of a nature to justify his custody, the Applicant is not a sexual predator but a young person who was involved in a consensual relationship which is admitted by the prosecutrix.”

Advocate Viral Mukte represented the Applicant while APP M.S. Bajoria represented the Respondent-State.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the Applicant committed rape repeatedly on the prosecutrix for over 15 months from January 2023 to April 2024. The applicant was 22 years old and the prosecutrix was 16 years old on the date of filing of FIR. The prosecutrix stated that she knew the Applicant for 4 years before filing of FIR and was in a love relationship with him. They both used to visit each other’s homes and also venture together to various locations in Mumbai during their two-year-long relationship before filing of FIR.things took an unsavoury turn when she was called by the Applicant to his home under the guise of going on the excursion but was instead forced into establishing a sexual relationship with him.

The prosecutrix remained silent about this incident and the same was followed by a streak of similar instances eventually leading to her pregnancy (discovered by her, and her mother to be 8 weeks old) and subsequent MTP. Her MTP was followed by another episode of grimy incidents where the Applicant used to repeatedly call her to his home and compelled her to establish sexual relations and she obliged. prosecutrix was introduced to a woman who was her mother’s acquaintance where she relocated herself for ‘her care’. Thereafter, her medical examination was conducted which revealed that she was 5 weeks pregnant for the second time.

Reasoning

Taking note of their long relationship as admitted by the Prosecutrix, the Bench said, “This prima facie shows and reflects that the acts between the parties were consensual in nature. From the record it is seen that she was in love with the Applicant and therefore developed physical relations with him as admitted by her.

Reference was made to the judgment in Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) wherein it has been observed that consensus of the prosecutrix who is below the age of 18 years is a mitigating circumstance for the trial Court to consider, especially while dealing with bail Applications.“The material placed before me do not indicate towards any force being engaged by Applicant over the prosecutrix during their relationship. The case appears to be consensual in nature that had come to the knowledge of her mother upon prosecutrix becoming pregnant not once, but twice”, the Bench said.

As per the Bench, both the parties were of the age to have a reasonable understanding of the import of their conduct and despite that had engaged in the said act over a substantial period of time. “It is seen that multiple decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial especially in consensual relationship so that the regressive influences of jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind the principle of best interest in the aforesaid circumstances”, it noticed.

Thus, the High Court directed the Appellant to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond for Rs 15,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Cause Title: Mohammed Ajaan Khan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:7474]

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Viral Mukte, Bilal A. Motorwala

Respondent: APP M.S. Bajoria, Advocate Gargi Warunjikar

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Milind N JhadavPOCSO CaseSection 376 IPCRape Case

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.