[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Surendra V. Azad And Another vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Civil ... on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1157
Order 220126ba1450.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1450 OF 2025.
Kalpesh Shashikant Kakkad.
-VERSUS-
State of Maharashtra and another.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Ms M. Sharma/Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri D.V. Chavhan, Senior Advocate/PP with Shri A.A.
Madiwale, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1.
Shri S. Dewani, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : JANUARY 22, 2026.
Heard.
2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime
No.432/2025 registered with Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Sections 328, 376, 376[2][n] and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The informant - victim since 2019 was residing with her
brother at Mumbai and was practicing as an Advocate, however, because
of health problem she is working from home at Nagpur. It is her
allegation that while residing at Mumbai, she received a friend request
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
2
from the facebook account of the applicant. On accepting the same, the
applicant sent his biodata and intimated her that he is willing to marry
her. The victim told this to her family members, where meeting was held,
and on 14.01.2024 they got engaged at Nagpur at the residence of the
victim. It is further alleged by the victim that on the very same day when
all the family members had been to temple, she was in the kitchen, where
she informed the applicant that she is experiencing headache, on which
the applicant gave her some tablet. After taking this tablet the victim lost
her control and taking advantage of the same, the applicant has
committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter the applicant declined
to marry her and told her that he is having her photo and video and on
the threat to make them viral established sexual relations with her on
multiple occasions. During that period, the applicant had also taken Rs.8
to 10 lakhs from victim's brother on the pretext of investment in share
market, and thus, the report came to be filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
allegations of rape has been alleged against the present applicant. Infact
the informant is 47 years of age and an Advocate by profession. It
cannot be said that a lady of 47 years, and who is an Advocate by
profession, would permit any person to commit rape without her consent,
and therefore, she submits that it is a case of consensual act. She further
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
3
submits that in order to attract Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code,
there is no evidence in the entire charge sheet. Further vague allegations
are made in order to implicate the present applicant. She further submits
that it is an admitted fact that the present applicant was intending to
marry with her, not only that engagement had also taken place, and the
applicant is still ready and willing to marry her. It is further submitted
that the informant has invested some amount, as present applicant was
engaged in the business of share market, however, there was loss and
therefore, the informant and her family members were claiming the
amount from the applicant which they had invested in the share market.
As the applicant was not able to return the amount, therefore, the first
information report came to be registered.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel and PP for
Non-applicant/State and learned Counsel for the Non-applicant/victim-
informant submits that applicant has used a specific modus operandi in
order to drag multiple women. They have invited my attention to
facebook accounts, where in the applicant was in touch with near about
17 women. Further they have invited my attention to several chats with
those women. They have also invited my attention to two statements
recorded by the investigating officer, wherein similar modus operandi was
used in order to take benefit of those ladies. The applicant had asked one
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
4
lady to invest Rs.60,000/-, however, as she was not having the said
amount, the applicant had blocked her. Similar was the case with another
victim, wherein she had invested Rs.1 lakhs and given gold articles to the
applicant. They further submit that one first information was registered
after present first information report in Hyderabad, wherein similar story
was narrated by the victim of the said complaint. Both the learned
Counsel specifically and vehemently argued that the applicant is a
conman, and he is in the habit of conning women who are around 40
years of age, and therefore, they submit that by using a specific modus
operandi, the applicant is conning women. It is further submitted that so
far as the crime relating to Hyderabad is concerned, the same was
suppressed, and on that basis the trial Court has rejected the bail. The
learned Counsel for the non-applicant no.2, has for said purpose relied on
the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 19.01.2026 in
Criminal Application No.2236/2025 (Amol @ Pappu Popat
Andhale .vrs. The State of Maharashtra), which reiterates suppression of
criminal antecedents, is a good ground to reject bail. Further the
investigation is going and they prayed to dismiss the appication.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions admittedly it
appears from the record that the victim is aged 47 years, further she is an
Advocate by profession. Admittedly there is no material except for bare
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
5
statement that the informant has given some tablet and thereafter the
offence of rape has been committed. Therefore, in order to attract the
provisions of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no material
on record. Now from the entire first information report, it appears that
under false promise of marriage, the applicant has committed sexual
intercourse with the victim. As observed above, admittedly the victim is a
major person, however, in the further part of the first information report
it appears that near about 8 to 10 lakhs rupees have been invested by the
family of the informant with the applicant in the share market. So far as
the statement of two witnesses are concerned, wherein my attention was
drawn by the learned Counsel for the non-applicants, however, both
statements does not show that they were sexually abused or sexual
intercourse was committed with them.
7. Considering the above nature of material it appears from the
contents of first information report that it is a consensual act. So far as
the offence registered at Hyderabad is concerned, it can be gathered that
in that crime, the applicant was granted bail by the competent Court at
Hyderabad. Considering the nature of allegations and the material placed
before me, I am satisfied that a case for grant of bail has been made out
by the applicant. So far as the reliance on the judgment placed by the
learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 is concerned, in paragraph no.20
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
6
of the said judgment, this Court has observed as under -
"20. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Munnesh [supra], it was
obligatory for the applicant to disclose the criminal
antecedents, while presenting the bail application and
the same is not complied with. The failure to do so
constitutes an additional circumstance against the
applicant, justifying the rejection of the application."
However, so far as the present case is concerned, the present applicant has
disclosed said facts before this Court, not only that, he has annexed copy
of application filed at Hyderbad, therefore, the observations of this Court
in paragaraph no.20 of the cited judgment would not be of any help to
the non-applicants. Thus, considering the above facts, coupled with the
fact that no purpose would be served by keeping the present applicant
behind bars, as the investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed, he
can be released on bail by imposing certain stringent conditions. Hence
the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant /accused Kalpesh Shashikant Kakkad
be released on regular bail in connection with
Crime No.432/2025 registered with Jaripatka
Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 328, 376, 376[2][n] and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code on his furnishing P.R. Bond of
Rgd.
Order 220126ba1450.25
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant/accused shall not commit similar type
of offence.
(iv) The accused shall not enter within the territorial
jurisdiction where the informant /victim is residing,
till the completion of the trial.
(v) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall
not tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The accused shall provide his residential address
and cell number to Police Station concerned and
shall not change his place of residence without prior
intimation to the Investigating Agency.
(vii) The accused shall attend the concerned police
station on every 2nd Monday of each month, till the
trial commence, and thereafter, attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the
trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply
with the aforesaid conditions, his default would
entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
(viii) The above observations are prima facie in nature,
and restricted for the purpose of deciding this
application. The Trial Court shall not get itself
influenced by said observations, during the course
of trial.
(ix) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
JUDGE
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation:Rgd.
PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2026 14:48:39
