Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Aakash Sandhi Bindu on 30 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:41589
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2025
(For Cancellation of Bail)
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Aakash Sandhi Bindu ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.19317 OF 2025
(For Intervention)
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2025
Saanen Kuresh Sutterwala ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms Megha S Bajoria, APP for the Applicant-State in
Appln/367/2025.
Mr Shlok Saraogi, for the Respondent-Accused in
Appln/367/2025.
Mr Shivamsinh Deshmukh, with Tarun Shetty, for the
Applicant in IAST/19317/2025.
Mr Sachin Khondre, PI attached to D N Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER 2025
Page 1 of 15
th
30 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2025 21:47:36 :::
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. This is an Application moved by the State, seeking recall
of the order dated 24th February 2025 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi (Borivali Division),
Goregaon, Mumbai in Criminal Bail Application No.119 of
2025 in C.R. No.1309 of 2024 registered with D.N. Nagar
Police Station. Vide the said order, the Sessions Court,
Mumbai has enlarged the Respondent-Accused on bail subject
to the conditions mentioned therein. By way of the present
Application, the State seeks cancellation of the said bail order
on several grounds. The Respondent-Accused, along with 2
other accused, is alleged to have committed offences
punishable under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. There is also an Intervention Application (St) No.19317
of 2025 made on behalf of the Victim-Complainant seeking to
intervene in the present Application and advance submissions.
The said Intervention Application is allowed.
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
3. As per the prosecution, the offending part of the
Impugned Order is contained in paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7
which read as thus:
"5. The learned Advocate for accused drawn
attention to the medical papers filed alongwith charge-
sheet and submitted that medical examination of the
victim was immediately conducted and no fresh injury
was found, which prima facie show that there was no
such incident happened as alleged by the informant.
6. From the story narrated in first information
report prima facie it appears that relations between
informant and accused Shabbir Rangunwala were since
long Informant was knowing him since ten years. She
went to him on his call voluntarily. In the history no
previous incident from him is narrated. On the basis of
medical evidence though there are external injuries
found on person of informant, then also on
examination of private parts of the informant no fresh
injuries was seen. Informant was examined by medical
officer immediately on 10.12.2024. It is within 24
hours of the alleged incident.
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
7. Investigation of the case is now completed.
Trial would take its own time. In such circumstances. I
am of the opinion that basis allegations are against
accused Mustafa Rangunwala of assault and forceful
sexual intercourse with informant. In such
circumstances indefinite detention of the applicant is
not required. Taking into consideration the grounds
that marriage of the applicant is scheduled on 01.03.
2025, I am of the opinion that by imposing stringent
conditions applicant may be released on bail. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:"
4. Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP representing the State,
submits that there are several infirmities in the said bail order,
which are as follows:
(i) According to her, the Trial Court has not appreciated the
medical evidence in respect of the Victim-Complainant in its
proper perspective inasmuch as that the Trial Court has held
that although, there are external injuries found on the person
of the Victim-Complainant, no fresh injuries are seen on her
private parts;
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
(ii) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the
Victim-Complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short);
(iii) That the marriage of the Respondent-Accused is
scheduled on 1st March 2025 cannot be the basis for grant of
bail to the Respondent-Accused;
(iv) The premises in which the alleged act/offence took
place, were rented premises of the Respondent-Accused;
(v) A Mobile phone containing indecent photos of the
Victim-Complainant, was recovered from Accused no.1. The
said photographs were part of the supplementary charge-
sheet, yet the Trial Court failed to consider them;
(vi) The statement of the uncle of the Victim-Complainant
specifically stating that the Victim-Complainant tried to
contact him for help, lending credibility to the story of the
victim, has not been considered at all by the Trial Court;
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
(vii) Medical report of the Victim-Complainant clearly shows,
injuries on her head. The final opinion of the Doctor also
records evidence of physical violence in terms of the head
injury, scratch marks, etc., on her person, which has been
totally overlooked by the Trial Court;
5. In support of her submissions, Ms. Bajoria has tendered
the entire charge-sheet including the supplementary charge-
sheet. The same are taken on record. She thus, submits that
despite all the aforesaid aspects being part of the charge-
sheet/supplementary charge-sheet and despite the fact that
minimum punishment for the said offence is 20 years, the
Trial Court allowed the Bail Application. She submits that the
Trial Court thus, erred in granting bail to the Respondent-
Accused.
6. Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing
for the Intervenor, supports the contentions of Ms. Bajoria.
Additionally, he submits that common intention of committing
the offence of gang rape is implicit, right from the beginning
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
as seen from the conduct of all three Accused. He drew my
attention to the spot panchanama, which reveals that there
was a ladies undergarment, found at the spot of the incident.
He also drew my attention to the statement of the owner of
the flat, who states that the flat was rented out to the
Respondent No. 1- Accused. He placed on record several
decisions of the Supreme Court, in support of his arguments.
He thus, prays that the bail granted to the Respondent-
Accused, be cancelled.
7. Per contra, Mr. Shlok Saraogi, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent-Accused defended the impugned order. He
submits that there are discrepancies in the FIR and the
statement of the Victim-Complainant recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the victim has improved her
story in her 164 statement. He also submits that the Victim-
Complainant is said to have telephoned her brother before
11.30 p.m. but in the CCTV footage, she was seen entering the
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
building at 11.31 p.m. He thus, supports the order passed by
the Trial Court and prays that the Application be rejected.
8. Heard all the counsels for the parties and perused the
record with their assistance. Upon taking into account the
entirety of the case, it appears that the impugned order
requires intercession. A plain reading of the order reveals that
the Respondent-Accused was enlarged on bail, without
examining all material aspects placed by the prosecution
before the Trial Court by way of filing the charge-sheet and
the supplementary charge-sheet.
9. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Shabeen
Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.1 while placing
reliance upon the case of Ajwar v. Waseem2, cancelled the bail
granted to the accused in a dowry death case, observing as
follows:
"15...... A superficial application of bail parameters
not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself
but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's
1 2025 INSC 307
2 (2024) 10 SCC 768
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is
this very perception of justice, both within and outside
the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we
risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim
numerous innocent lives. These observations
regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were
thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v.
Waseem in the following paras:
"26. While considering as to whether bail ought to
be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors
like the nature of the accusations made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged
to have been committed, the gravity of the offence,
the role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the
offence, if the accused are released on bail, the
likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the
event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing
the proceedings and evading the courts of justice
and the overall desirability of releasing the accused
on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
[Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525];
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7
SCC 528]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [(2009) 14 SCC
286]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
[(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
[(2014) 16 SCC 508]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]; Mahipal v.
Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118].
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail
is always open to interference by the superior
court. If there are serious allegations against the
accused, even if he has not misused the bail
granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by
the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can
also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires
that the courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked into the
gravity of the offence or the impact on the society
resulting in such an order. In P v. State of M.P.
[(2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima
Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that
must weigh with the Court for interfering in an
order granting bail to an accused under Section
439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224,
para 24)
"24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the
court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it
is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit
him to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v.
State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349] . To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court
would be loathe to interfere with an order
passed by the court below granting bail but if
such an order is found to be illegal or perverse
or premised on material that is irrelevant, then
such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
interference by the appellate court. (emphasis
supplied)"
Considerations for setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail order on
an application being moved by the aggrieved party
include any supervening circumstances that may
have occurred after granting relief to the accused,
the conduct of the accused while on bail, any
attempt on the part of the accused to
procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any
instance of threats being extended to the witnesses
while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to tamper with the evidence in any
manner. We may add that this list is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court
must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail,
only a prima facie case needs to be examined and
detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case
that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to
be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order
should reveal the factors that have been
considered by the Court for granting relief to the
accused." (Emphasis Supplied)
10. I have gone through the FIR as well as the statement of
the Victim-Complainant recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. The Victim-Complainant has narrated the entire sordid
ordeal faced by her at the hands of the three accused in the
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
criminal case. A plain reading of the FIR as well as the
statement of the Victim-Complainant recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. clearly reveal that although she went to the
said flat voluntarily with Accused no.1, being her friend,
accompanied by the Respondent-Accused, she was given a
spiked drink, after which she was taken to the bathroom and
beaten up by accused no.1. She fell and banged her head on
the commode. Thereafter, she was disrobed, brought on the
bed, her hands were tied, her mobile phone was taken away
and she was brutally raped by all the three accused. The 164
statement is consistent with the averments in the FIR. The
medical report shown to me by Ms. Bajoria also indicates an
injury on left side of her head. Findings of the doctor also
demonstrate evidence of physical violence in terms of a head
injury along with other scratches and other injuries found on
her person. The statement of the Victim-Complainant's uncle
also corroborates that of the Victim-Complainant. The spot
panchanama of the incident also records the items found lying
in the house, which include a pink colour ladies underwear
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
along with an old monk bottle, some cigarrette buds, a hair
scrunchy, bed-sheet, etc. Statement of the landlord of the flat
also makes it clear that the said flat was rented out to the
Respondent-Accused.
11. I have also perused the decisions of the Supreme Court
relied upon by the Intervenor.
12. What bothers me the most is the considerations which
are weighed by the Trial Court while writing the impugned
order. The Trial Court has considered only two aspects;
Firstly, that there are no injuries on the private part of the
Victim-Complainant albeit, the Trial Judge does record
injuries on the person of the Victim-Complainant as
appearing in the medical report; Secondly, the Trial Court
appears to have been swayed by the fact that the marriage
of the Respondent-Accused is scheduled in the near future.
Ms. Bajoria insists, even if that ground is considered as
tenable, it was a misleading statement as till date, no
marriage of the Respondent-Accused is solemnized.
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
However, the fact that the Trial Court has considered this as
a parameter for grant of bail itself, is somewhat troubling.
The Respondent-Accused was arrested on 9 th December
2024 and was released on bail on 24 th February 2025, i.e.,
within a period of 2 and half months from the date of his
arrest on the ground that his marriage was scheduled in
March 2025, despite all the material on record prima facie
indicting the Respondent-Accused. Furthermore, the offence
is that of gang rape. The alleged acts attributed to the
Respondent-Accused are heinous. Considering the totality of
the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Trial Court has
ignored the relevant material available on record and failed
to consider the gravity of the offence.
13. The statute as well as a series of decision of the apex
court and various high court have well settled the
parameters for the grant of bail to an under trial.
Impending marriage of an accused is not one of them.
th
30 September 2025
Shivgan 903-Appln-367-2025.doc
14. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated aforesaid, the
impugned order is set aside and the order granting bail to
the Respondent-Accused is cancelled.
15. The Respondent-Accused is directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer latest within two days from
the date of uploading of this order.
16. Application is accordingly disposed of.
17. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2025.09.30
20:44:19
+0530
th
30 September 2025
