The Bombay High Court (Bombay Bench) allowed the State’s application, set aside the Sessions Court’s order, and cancelled the bail granted to the accused, ordering him to surrender to the investigating officer within two days.
The accused, along with two others, was alleged to have perpetrated gang rape after giving the victim a spiked drink, physically assaulting her, tying her hands, taking away her phone, and committing sexual assault. The victim’s immediate medical examination showed multiple injuries, including to the head, and corroboration from the victim’s uncle and physical evidence at the crime scene, including women’s garments and other incriminating items.
The accused was arrested in December 2024 and granted bail by the Sessions Court in February 2025 on the grounds that there were no injuries to the victim’s private parts and due to his impending marriage. The prosecution and the complainant challenged the bail citing ignored evidence and improper application of law.
The State of Maharashtra filed for cancellation of bail under sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the Sessions Court erred in granting bail to the accused in a serious gang rape case. The victim’s side also intervened, highlighting flaws in the original bail order.
The State argued that the trial judge ignored critical medical and witness evidence and erroneously relied on the ‘marriage’ argument for granting bail. The victim’s counsel highlighted the seriousness of the crime and pointed to recent Supreme Court rulings on bail parameters for grievous offences. The accused claimed inconsistencies in the victim’s statement, but the High Court found such discrepancies insufficient to outweigh strong supporting evidence.
The Bench comprising Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the Sessions Judge granted bail based on superficial reasoning, disregarding clear evidence of physical violence and corroborative witness statements. It was held that the Trial Judge’s reliance on impending marriage was wholly irrelevant, and instead the gravity, available evidence, and societal interest should be the chief deciding factors in serious offences.
In result, the High Court quashed the bail order, stating that the trial court failed to apply its mind to relevant factors and that “impending marriage” is not a valid ground for bail. The accused was ordered to surrender within two days.
Cases referred to:
1. Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2025 INSC 307
2. Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768
Appearances:
Ms. Megha S Bajoria, APP for the Applicant-State
Mr. Shlok Saraogi, for the Respondent-Accused
Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh, with Tarun Shetty, for the Victim-Applicant
