[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrahas Bhim Prasad vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17779
ba3232-25c.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3232 OF 2025
Suraj Mohan Prasad ...Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2783 OF 2025
Chandrahas Bhim Prasad ...Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.Gaurav Parkar for the Applicant in BA No.3232 of 2025.
Mr.Rahman Bashir Khan for the Applicant in BA No.2783 of
2025.
Mr.A.S. Gawai, APP for the State - Respondent in both the B.As.
Ms.Manisha Deokar for Respondent No.2 in both the B.As.
Ms.Prajakta Patil, PSI attached to Palghar Police Station is
present in Court.
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVE : 8TH APRIL, 2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16TH APRIL, 2026.
P.C:-
1. Since both the applications arise out of the same
1/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
crime, by consent of both sides heard and decided together.
2. This application is filed for regular bail in connection
with Crime No.89 of 2025 registered with Palghar Police Station
for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. Prosecutrix lodged report stating that on 15/03/2025,
around 12.30 pm, she was sitting in her store when, the
applicants came in her house for drinking water. Applicants were
her acquaintances as they are residents of her sister Mina's
village from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. She provided the water
as they were belonging from her sister's village. While she was
going to put the glass, Chandrahas came near her and started
appreciating her. At that time, she told him that "she doesn't
want to talk and asked both of them to leave the house
immediately forthwith stating that and she is not that kind of
woman. Suraj caught both of her hands and Chandrahas lifted
her saree from behind and started forcible sex with her. At that
time, she tried to scream, but Suraj pressed her mouth and she
couldn't scream. Due to sexual intercourse commenced by
2/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
Chandrahas there was bleeding and pain to her. Both thereafter
left her house. She was scared and stayed home. On 16/03/2025
there was bleeding and pain and therefore she came to Hospital
and her treatment was going on. She had lodged the complaint
against Chandrahas and Suraj.
4. The prosecutrix was sent to medical examination and
medical report was obtained and included in the investigation
papers. Her supplementary statement was recorded on
19/03/2025, whereby she claimed that the incident has
occurred on 14/03/2025 and by mistake disclosed the same to
be 15/03/2025. After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet
came to be filed. Learned Trial Court rejected the applications
for bail filed by the applicants. Hence these applications.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that this is a
case of false implication of the applicants in the crime in view of
the fact that Chandrahas decided to marry the sister of Suraj and
hence the prosecutrix has lodged false report against both of
them. It is his submission that material evidence on record
clearly indicates that the prosecutrix was in contact with the
3/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
applicant - Chandrahas and even after the alleged occurrence of
incident, she contacted him and also sent hasty message. It is his
submission that a person who is subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse would not contact perpetrator i.e. one of the
applicants. It is his further submission that there are material
inconsistencies in her statement with regard to the day on which
the incident has occurred. According to him when the
prosecutrix realized that the applicants were not present on the
spot on the alleged date of incident, she conveniently changed
the date of incident. It is submitted that though the prosecutrix
is relying upon the medical evidence, pertinently the Medical
Officer has not given any opinion with regard to the possibility
of the alleged injuries caused to the prosecutrix on account of
forcible sexual intercourse. It is submitted that the conduct of
the prosecutrix of recording consent for grant of bail before the
Sessions Court and conditional consent before this Court i.e.
subject to the applicant - Chandrahas marrying her, she has no
objection to the grant of bail, indicates that there is possibility of
there being consensual relationship between the applicant -
4/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
Chandrahas and the prosecutrix and since he is marrying to the
sister of Suraj, false case has been filed against them.
6. Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2
opposed the application. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2
however, on instructions from the prosecutrix, who was present
in the Court, makes statement that she has no objection to grant
of bail to the applicant - Chandrahas provided he marries her.
On merits, they opposed the application by contending that the
allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and are
supported by medical evidence. With regard to the change in the
date of occurrence of the incident, it is contended that it is
possible that by mistake the different date of incident is given
initially which is corrected at later point of time. It is submitted
that in the facts of the case, the applicants are not entitled for
bail.
7. The prosecutrix recorded no objection for grant of bail
to the applicants before the Sessions Court. Similarly, before this
Court, submission is made that the applicant - if Chandrahas is
ready to marry her, she has no objection for grant of bail to him.
5/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
Thus the statements of the prosecutrix creates possibility of false
implication of the applicants as sought to be contended by the
learned counsel for the applicants. It is not the matter of co-
incidence to be ignored that the co-accused is the brother of a
girl with whom the applicant - Chandraha's marriage came to be
fixed. The record indicates that the prosecutrix was in contact
with the applicant - Chandrahas and most importantly even
after occurrence of the alleged incident, she continued to stay in
contact with him. When this Court has raised specific query to
learned counsel for Respondent No.2 as to what is the reason for
which she had contacted the applicant - Chandrahas even after
the occurrence of the incident, it was answered that she wanted
the applicant - Chandrahas to take her to hospital. This Court
finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the
applicants that no victim would seek help from the perpetrator
of crime of sexual assault to take her to hospital. Prima-facie
therefore, the only inference which could be drawn is that the
applicant - Chandrahas and the prosecutrix were close to each
other and that the possibility of consensual relationship between
6/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
them is not ruled out. Consequently, the possibility to the false
implication in view of marriage of the applicant - Chandrahas
being fixing with the sister of the co-accused exists.
8. Apart from the above facts, there are material
inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix as to the date
on which the incident in question has occurred. During course of
hearing, when this Court posed the query to the learned APP as
to whether it is correct that the applicants have alibi on
15/03/2025, on instructions, learned APP confirmed the said
fact. In the light of this fact, a doubt is created as to whether the
change of date of occurrence of the incident is innocuous / bona-
fide or otherwise. Moreover, the Medical Officer has not given
any opinion to indicate the possibility of injuries caused to the
prosecutrix on account of forcible sexual intercourse is not ruled
out. Absence of such opinion also creates doubt about the
medical condition of the prosecutrix, on account of anal
intercourse or for other reason. This however could be decided
only during trial. Suffice it to say that prima-facie doubt is
created by Applicants to the story of prosecution.
7/9
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:46:19 :::
ba3232-25c.doc
9. In the aforestated facts, the applicants after
conclusion of the investigation and after filing of the
chargesheet, cannot be kept in jail by way of pre-trial sentence.
The apprehension of the prosecutrix of pressuring her can be
taken care by imposing appropriate conditions. The applicants
have no criminal history and they are not likely to flee from
justice.
10. Hence the order :-
ORDER:
a). The Applications stand allowed.
b). The Applicants be enlarged on bail in connection with
Crime No.89 of 2025 registered with Palghar Police Station on
furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
c). The Applicants not to enter the jurisdiction of Palghar
Police Station, except for attending the dates of hearing before
the Trial Court.
d). The Applicants to attend the Trial Court on each dates
of hearing unless exempted by the Trial Court.
ba3232-25c.doc
e). The Applicants not to contact any witness directly or
indirectly and not to interfere into the evidence of the
prosecution in any manner whatsoever.
f) Any breach of the above conditions would result into
cancellation of bail.
11. It is clarified that above observations are prima-facie in
nature and would not bind the Trial Court / parties during trial.
(R.M. JOSHI, J.)
