SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.R. Borkar, J
DEELIP RAMCHANDAR RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2202 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. D. Chavan
For the Respondents: B. V. Holambe Patil, Megha Gowalani

Anticipatory bail may be denied in cases involving serious sexual offences and blackmail, particularly when there is evidence that the accused has intimidated the victim or coerced them into providing a no-objection for the grant of bail.

Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail for offences punishable under Sections 64 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant forced the victim to a lodge, committed sexual intercourse, took semi-nude photographs, and subsequently blackmailed the victim by threatening to send the photographs to her husband and relatives. The court found that the photographs were taken by the applicant and that he had pressured the victim to provide a no-objection for his bail. The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the crime and his subsequent conduct. The court reasoned that the statements of the victim and her husband, combined with evidence that the applicant coerced the victim into facilitating his bail, outweighed the applicant's claim that the allegations were false. The application is rejected.

Table of Content
1. allegations of sexual assault, non-consensual photography, and subsequent blackmail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing arguments regarding the veracity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation versus witness intimidation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. denial of anticipatory bail based on evidence of coercion and the gravity of the offence. (Para 7)

P.C. :

1. This is an application for Anticipatory Bail.

2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 618 of 2025 registered at Narpoli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 64 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2024 the present applicant had compelled the victim to accompany him and took her to one lodge. It is alleged that there he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim and clandestinely took her semi-nude photographs. It is alleged that the applicant thereafter started blackmailing the victim that if she refused to keep physical relations with him, then he would send her nude photographs to her husband and her relatives. It is alleged that as the victim refused to keep the relationship with him, he forwarded her semi-nude photographs to co-accused, who in turn forwarded the said semi-nude photographs to the husband of the victim.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that with an ulterior motive, false allegations are made against the present applicant. It is submitted that the prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet against the co-accused. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim submit that after the registration of crime, the present applicant started threatening the victim and even made her give no objection for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7. I have perused the first information report and the statement of the husband of the victim. It appears from the statement of the husband of the victim that the co-accused in the present crime had sent semi-nude photographs of the victim to him. During the course of investigation, it was found that the said semi-nude photographs were taken by the present applicant. It appears from the statement of the victim dated 06.10.2025 that the present applicant had even pressurised her to give no objection for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top