IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2025 (For Cancellation of Bail)

The State of Maharashtra …Applicant Versus Aakash Sandhi Bindu …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.19317 OF 2025 (For Intervention)

IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2025 Saanen Kuresh Sutterwala ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms Megha S Bajoria, APP for the Applicant-State in Appln/367/2025.

Mr Shlok Saraogi, for the Respondent-Accused in Appln/367/2025.

Mr Shivamsinh Deshmukh, with Tarun Shetty, for the Applicant in IAST/19317/2025.

Mr Sachin Khondre, PI attached to D N Nagar Police Station, Mumbai present.

CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

DATED: 30^th SEPTEMBER 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. This is an Application moved by the State, seeking recall of the order dated 24^th February 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai in Criminal Bail Application No.119 of 2025 in C.R. No.1309 of 2024 registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station. Vide the said order, the Sessions Court, Mumbai has enlarged the Respondent-Accused on bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein. By way of the present Application, the State seeks cancellation of the said bail order on several grounds. The Respondent-Accused, along with 2 other accused, is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. There is also an Intervention Application (St) No.19317 of 2025 made on behalf of the Victim-Complainant seeking to intervene in the present Application and advance submissions.

The said Intervention Application is allowed.

3. As per the prosecution, the offending part of the Impugned Order is contained in paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 which read as thus:

“5. The learned Advocate for accused drawn attention to the medical papers filed alongwith charge- sheet and submitted that medical examination of the victim was immediately conducted and no fresh injury was found, which prima facie show that there was no such incident happened as alleged by the informant.

6. From the story narrated in first information report prima facie it appears that relations between informant and accused Shabbir Rangunwala were since long Informant was knowing him since ten years. She went to him on his call voluntarily. In the history no previous incident from him is narrated. On the basis of medical evidence though there are external injuries found on person of informant, then also on examination of private parts of the informant no fresh injuries was seen. Informant was examined by medical officer immediately on 10.12.2024. It is within 24 hours of the alleged incident.

7. Investigation of the case is now completed. Trial would take its own time. In such circumstances. I am of the opinion that basis allegations are against accused Mustafa Rangunwala of assault and forceful sexual intercourse with informant. In such circumstances indefinite detention of the applicant is not required. Taking into consideration the grounds that marriage of the applicant is scheduled on 01.03. 2025, I am of the opinion that by imposing stringent conditions applicant may be released on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:”

4. Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP representing the State, submits that there are several infirmities in the said bail order, which are as follows:

(i) According to her, the Trial Court has not appreciated the medical evidence in respect of the Victim-Complainant in its proper perspective inasmuch as that the Trial Court has held that although, there are external injuries found on the person of the Victim-Complainant, no fresh injuries are seen on her private parts;

(ii) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the Victim-Complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short);

(iii) That the marriage of the Respondent-Accused is scheduled on