[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amol Madhavrao Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3704
923 BA No.1928.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1928 OF 2025
AMOL MADHAVRAO RATHOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ravindra B. Ade
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Gajanan K. Ulle
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 29th January, 2026
ORDER :
-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 19.05.2025 bearing Crime
No. 109 of 2025 registered with Mukhed Police Station, Dist.
Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 64(1), 69,
351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
66(E), 67, 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim and the
accused have been acquainted since 2022. Following a proposal in
July 2022, both entered a relationship and exchanged contact
information. Between August 2022 and January 2023, the accused
recorded photographs and videos of their intimate physical acts.
Despite the informant's specific requests, the accused refused to
delete the recorded media.
3. The prosecution alleges that upon discovering that the
accused was married with three children, the informant terminated
all communication. Subsequently, on 31.03.2023, the accused
arrived at the informant's residence and committed an indecent
assault. Although the victim reported this incident to the Mukhed
Police at the time, did not disclose the prior relationship or the
existence of the recordings due to the fear of the content being
leaked.
4. It is further alleged that the accused thereafter
engaged in persistent telephonic harassment, threatening to
circulate the private videos among the informant's relatives. Faced
with continuous defamation and digital misuse, the informant was
left with no choice but to file the present complaint. Accordingly,
the FIR came to be lodged.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
The victim admits a long-term, voluntary relationship between two
adults from July 2022 to January 2023. It is further contended
that the allegations of indecent behavior on 31.03.2023 arose only
after the relationship ended, indicating a retaliatory motive rather
than a criminal. The investigation is almost complete. Nothing
remains to be recovered from the applicant. As such, prayed that
application may be allowed.
6. The learned APP and the learned counsel for repsondent
No. 2 opposed the application, submitting that the accused sexually
exploited the victim and captured photographs and video of the
assault. Committed the serious nature of the offence, it is
contended that the applicant's release on bail would create a
significant risk of tampering with evidence. Consequently, the APP
and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 pray for the application
to be rejected.
7. Considering the submissions from both sides and
perusing the record, including the charge-sheet, prima facie, it is
evident that a consensual relationship existed between the victim
and the accused from July 2022 to January 2023. Thereafter, the
relationship allegedly ended and the incident of indecent behavior
occurred on 31.03.2023. However, the complaint regarding the
explicit videos and sexual acts was presented significantly after
lapse of time. The delay prima facie indicates that the allegations
may be an afterthought and the same warrants protection under
the principle of personal liberty.
8. Prima facie, the victim appears to have consciously
participated in the acts, prima facie indicating an awareness of the
consequences of her actions. Thus, the emerging factual matrix
does not, at this stage, reflect active inducement or coercive
conduct on the part of the accused.
9. Nevertheless, the investigation is complete and the
charge-sheet is also filed. The primary evidence consists of digital
data, including photographs, videos, and social media logs. Since
these materials are electronic, can be secured via forensic seizure
of the accused's devices. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served
by keeping the accused behind the bar.
10. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant's deserves to be entitled for bail. The
learned APP's apprehension about tampering with the prosecution
evidence can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions.
11. Resultantly, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant - Amol Madhavrao Rathod be released on
regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent
sureties in the like amount, in connection with Crime
No. 109 of 2025 registered with Mukhed Police
Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable
under Sections 63, 64(1), 69, 351(2), 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(E),
67, 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, on the
following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court, unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move the
concerned Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of deciding this application
and the trial court shall not be influenced by the
same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
