Bombay High Court
Amol Motiram Borde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:39264
Ajit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4185 OF 2024
Amol Motiram Borde ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w Dinesh Jadhwani a/w Ridhima
Mangaonkar a/w Sumati Gupta i/b W3Legal LLP for the
Applicant.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the State-Respondent No.1.
Ms. Racheeta Dhuru a/w Nasir Hussain a/w Prachi Anil Parte
for Respondent No.2.
PSI - Bapurao Haral, Vanrai Police Station, is present.
CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
RESERVED ON: 16th September 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 19th September 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. The Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in
connection with C.R. No. 75 of 2024 dated 19th February 2024
registered with the Vanarai Police Station, Brihanmumbai City,
for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
th
19 September 2025
2. Before adverting to the submissions made by the parties
relating to the grant of bail, it is necessary to provide a brief
conspectus of the prosecution's case against the Applicant.
3. The case of the prosecution as discerned from the FIR is
that the victim and the Applicant were working in Hub-town,
a real estate company at Bandra (W), Mumbai. The Applicant
is about 34 years of age and the victim is aged about 41 years.
They were colleagues and, on many occasions, while working
together, the Applicant had declared his love for the victim.
This feeling was however, not reciprocated by the Applicant
and she had so conveyed to him.
4. It is alleged that on 18th February 2024, the victim
arranged a party at her residence. She invited a few friends
including the Applicant to her house. Only a friend named
Natasha and the Applicant showed up and the other friends
did not attend the party. The Applicant and the victim were
drinking alcohol while said Natasha was having a soft drink.
At around 1 a.m. Natasha left the house and the Applicant
th
19 September 2025
also made to leave. However, he remained in house on the
pretext that he would leave after finishing his last peg. The
victim went to the bathroom in her bedroom. When she came
out, she found the Applicant in the bedroom, having locked
the door. He forcibly pulled her on the bed and raped her
violently. When the victim asked for some water as a pretext
to escape from his clutches, the Applicant brought water and
threw it on her face saying that he loved her and he would
ensure that she birthed his child so that she will be compelled
to marry him. He raped her violently twice and at around 3.30
a.m. left the house.
5. It is further alleged that the victim was scared and
texted her friends Pranay, Natasha and Priyank, narrating her
ordeal to them on WhatsApp. In the morning, her friend
Pranay called her and came to her house. Thereafter, the
victim narrated the incident to her mother on telephone and
after confiding in her, made the complaint. Accordingly, the
FIR was registered.
th
19 September 2025
6. The Applicant filed Bail Application No. 429 of 2024
before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. However, by order
dated 13th August 2024, his bail application was rejected.
Hence, he has filed the present bail application for the relief
as prayed.
7. Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant, raised various contentions. Firstly, on merits he
submitted that there was a relationship between the Applicant
and the victim and the entire incident was consensual. To
buttress this contention, he drew my attention to some
photographs of the victim and the Applicant taken in a hotel,
on Valentine's Day. He submitted that both of them had
booked a room at the Dragonfly-The Art Hotel and had spent
four hours in the hotel room. He pointed to some chats on
WhatsApp, exchanged between the parties which according to
him indicate a relationship. Mr. Pandey also brought to my
attention chat messages sent to the Applicant by the victim on
the date of incident, asking him to come to her house quickly
th
19 September 2025
as she was missing him and her other friend Natasha had
already reached her house. Mr. Pandey also said that on the
following morning, he ordered food to be delivered to her
house. Mr. Pandey admits that although the victim refused to
accept the food delivery, the conduct indicates a relationship
between them. He also submits that there is six-hour delay on
the part of the victim in filing the FIR and it was only after
consultation with her friend Pranay, that she lodged the
complaint. Mr. Pandey contends that the victim is in
relationship with said Pranay and hence, made a false
complaint at his instance.
8. Mr. Pandey's second contention pertains to
noncompliance of Section 50 of the Cr. P. C. According to him,
the grounds of arrest were not provided to him in writing. He
placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme
Court as well as this Court:- Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and Anr.1, State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. 2,
1 (2025) 5 SCC 799
2 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702
th
19 September 2025
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 3,
Rahul Daaji Landge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.4,
Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya Vs. Union of India and Anr.5
On these two grounds, Mr. Pandey urges the Court to allow
the bail application.
9. Per contra, Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP representing
the State, sought to negate the arguments made by Mr.
Pandey. On merits, she submitted that there was no love
relationship between the parties. The photographs relied upon
by Mr. Pandey do not show the Applicant and victim in one
frame; the photo of the hotel is that of the banquet room and
not of any hotel room; and none of the chats even remotely
suggest any intimate relationship between the parties.
10. Ms. Bajoria read out the statement of the victim which
clearly indicates a violent sexual assault on her. She also
pointed to the statements of the victim's mother and three
3 (2014) 16 SCC 623
4 In W.P. No. 4415 of 2025 dated 9th September 2025
5 (2025) SCC OnLine Bom 2972
th
19 September 2025
friends namely Pranay, Natasha and Priyank which are
consistent with the victim's statement. She also showed the
WhatsApp chats of the victim narrating the incident to them.
She drew my attention to the medical report of the victim
showing the injuries, the CA report and the case diary. Ms.
Bajoria therefore, contended that there was no consensual
relationship between the victim and the Applicant and the
case is that of a violent sexual assault.
11. Countering the argument of Mr. Pandey in respect of
noncompliance of Section 50 of the Cr. P. C., Ms. Bajoria relied
upon the case diary which indicates that the grounds of arrest
were communicated to the Applicant, his father was intimated
about his arrest, and no prejudice was caused to the Applicant
on account of not receiving the grounds of arrest in writing.
She submitted that the Trial Court had remanded the
Applicant to police custody for two days and thereafter,
remanded him to judicial custody. Ms. Bajoria submitted that
the Applicant was avoiding arrest and was ultimately traced to
th
19 September 2025
a location in Chembur from where he was arrested. She also
invited my attention to the roznama of the Trial Court to
indicate that the Applicant had refused to cooperate in the
framing of charges and had repeatedly sought adjournments
on the ground that he wanted to appoint an advocate. Ms.
Bajoria submitted that this pretext is totally contrary to the
roznama of earlier dates which records that the advocate of
the Applicant is absent. This clearly shows that the Applicant
was simply delaying the trial.
12. Another important aspect flagged by Ms. Bajoria are the
antecedents of the Applicant. She pointed to an earlier FIR
No. 835 of 2020 dated 29th November 2020 registered with
the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable
under Section 363 of the IPC. It was later revealed that the
victim girl in that CR was minor and thus, POCSO offences
were also added to the charge-sheet. The gravity of the
offence was such that the victim in that case ultimately
th
19 September 2025
committed suicide. In these circumstances, Ms. Bajoria urges
the Court to reject the bail application.
13. Ms. Racheeta Dhuru, learned Counsel represented the
Respondent No.2 and supported the contentions of the
learned APP. Additionally, she contended that while giving his
address to the doctor, the Applicant has mentioned an address
of Aurangabad. This indicates that the Applicant intends to
abscond. She supported Ms. Bajoria's contention that there
was no intimate relationship between victim and the
Applicant and the victim did not have any consensual sexual
relationship with him. Ms. Dhuru also opposes the bail
application.
14. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the respective
parties and have gone through the record with their
assistance. The Supreme Court has, in a catena of judgments,
outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion
under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. has to be exercised while
granting bail. In Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi
th
19 September 2025
Administration)6, the Apex Court held as to the various
parameters which must be considered while granting bail. The
Court held as follows:
"24. ...Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will
have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the
question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC of
the new Code. The overriding considerations in granting
bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are
common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section
439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of
the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the
position and the status of the accused with reference to the
victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused
fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of
jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect
of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with
witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its
investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of
so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out."
15. The above considerations have been consistently
followed by the Apex Court. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs.
Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.7, the Supreme Court held as under:
6 (1978) 1 SCC 118
7 (2010) 14 SCC 496
th
19 September 2025
"9. ... It is well settled that, among other circumstances the
factors to be borne in mind while considering the
applications for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail."
16. Applying the aforesaid principles and having perused
the material on record, it is seen that the statement of the
victim is consistent with the statements of her three friends
and her mother. All the statements show that the incident
happened between at 1 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. on the intervening
night of 19th February 2024 at the victim's house. The
Applicant left her house in the wee hours of the morning of
20th February 2024 and immediately in the morning after
th
19 September 2025
narrating the incident to her mother, the victim lodged the
complaint. In fact, she texted her friends about the incident
immediately after the Applicant left her home. There is thus
no delay in registration of the FIR.
17. The medical documents evidence multiple bruises on
her arms in addition to as many as nine injuries. These
injuries reveal a strong resistance by the victim to the
Applicant's assault. The CA report giving the result of analysis
of the bedsheet and clothes including underwear corroborates
the Applicant's narration of the incident. The victim's
statement to the doctor is also consistent with her statement.
The photographs and the WhatsApp chats between the
Applicant and the victim, by no stretch, demonstrate any
intimate relationship between them. Thus, there is no reason
to believe that the act was consensual. The nature and gravity
of the offence is quite serious.
18. The documents submitted by Ms. Bajoria to show the
antecedents of the Applicant clearly reveal the tendencies of
th
19 September 2025
the Applicant. There is a serious case under Section 363, 376
(2), 366, 366 (a) of IPC read with Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act
vide FIR No. 835 of 2020 against him. The Applicant has
committed the present offence while he is on bail in the
previous CR. The allegations in the earlier CR were also grave,
in as much as the Applicant being already married, had eloped
with a minor girl, having promised to marry her and forcing
sexual relations on her. The said minor girl ultimately
committed suicide. The trial in that matter is pending.
Considering the said antecedent of the Applicant in a similar
offence demonstrates the Applicant's leaning tendencies,
creating a reasonable apprehension that there is a likelihood
of the Applicant repeating such conduct.
19. Another contention raised by Mr. Pandey is on the
ground of breach of mandate of Section 50 of Cr. P. C. Both
the Counsel have placed reliance on Vihaan Kumar (supra).
The Supreme Court while dealing with the requirement of
th
19 September 2025
informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest,
in paragraph 26 held as under:
"26. Therefore, we conclude:
26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrest of
grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article
22(1);
26.2. The Information of the grounds of arrest must be
provided to the arrested person in such a manner that
sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the
grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested
person effectively in the language which he understands.
The mode and method of communication must be such
that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;
26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with
the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always
be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance
with the requirements of Article 22(1);
26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation
of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the
said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the
right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the
accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court
of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not
th
19 September 2025
vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the
same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach
of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);
26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a
Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the
Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article
22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made;
and
26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is
the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the
accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if
statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The
statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court
to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution is established."
20. The decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) is followed in
various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as various
High Courts on the said aspect. The Supreme Court in its
recent decision in Sri Darshan (supra) held that delay in
furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself constitute a
valid ground for grant of bail. Paragraph 20.1 reads thus:
"20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by
itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
th
19 September 2025
20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents - accused
contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of
arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby
violating Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50
Cr. P.C. (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid of merit.
20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that "no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds
for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult,
and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice".
Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr. P.C.requires that "every police
officer or other person arresting any person without
warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other
grounds for such arrest.
20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a
specific form or insists upon written communication in
every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that
substantial compliance with these requirements is
sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown.
20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22, it was
reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is
made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not
th
19 September 2025
conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
v. State of Andhra Pradesh23, it was observed that when
arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant
amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj
Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised
grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all
circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr. P.C. is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-
oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses.
The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto
render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the
alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while
overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302
IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter
alia, that there was no mention in the reman orders about
service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest
memos were allegedly template-based and not
personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated
that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed
the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India24 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 - 50) that from
03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and
th
19 September 2025
individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest
was a violation entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand
records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of
the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented
from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest,
evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of
the accusations. No material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable
prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect
and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated
above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor
while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section
302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance
on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as
those decisions turned on materially different facts and
statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is
inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural
lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do
not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused
to bail."
21. In the present case, the case diary produced by Ms.
Bajoria clearly notes that the grounds of arrest were
communicated to the Applicant at the time of his arrest, albeit
it is admitted by Ms. Bajoria on instructions, that the grounds
th
19 September 2025
of arrest were not given in writing to the Applicant. However,
the noting in the case diary indicates that the Applicant was
keeping out of the way to avoid arrest and he was ultimately
found in the Chembur (North) Railway Station. The case diary
also shows that the Applicant's father namely Motiram Borde
was intimated of his arrest. The remand report also indicates
that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the Magistrate
concerned. Thus, there is no breach of the statutory provision
of Section 50 of the Cr. P. C, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in its various decisions. Most importantly, the Applicant
has never raised a breach of noncompliance of Section 50 of
the Cr. P. C. in his bail application before the Sessions Court.
In any case, the remand report and the case diary clearly
reflect that the Applicant was aware of the reasons of his
arrest. Possibly that was the reason as to why he was keeping
away to avoid arrest. There is no prejudice demonstrated to
have been caused to the Applicant on account of not receiving
the grounds of arrest in writing.
th
19 September 2025
22. Ms. Bajoria raised an objection that the Applicant has
alleged noncompliance of Section 50 of Cr. P. C. for the very
first time in his arguments. She submitted that no such
ground is taken by the Applicant in his bail application,
neither before the Sessions Court nor before this Court. In
these circumstances, this Court, by its order dated 11 th August
2025 had granted leave to amend the application to add
averments regarding grounds of arrest. Surprisingly, the
Applicant has failed to carry out the said amendment till date.
Be that as it may, I have considered and dealt with the
objection of the Applicant alleging noncompliance of
requirement of Section 50 of the Cr. P. C. In the light of the
above, in my opinion, the grounds of arrest were in fact made
expressly known to the Applicant and he availed a fair
opportunity to oppose the remand application and canvassed
his bail application before the Sessions Court. Thus, there is
no violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
th
19 September 2025
23. The Applicant is in custody since 20 th February 2024.
The roznama of the Trial Court clearly shows that the
Applicant has refused to cooperate with the framing of
charges. It is the Applicant himself who is attempting to delay
the trial. There is no prolonged incarceration of the Applicant.
Accordingly, the seriousness of the charges, the antecedents
pertaining to a similar offence and, the Applicant's conduct in
the Trial Court make him unfit for bail.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the bail application
is rejected.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
th
19 September 2025
