Bombay HC grants bail to 22-year-old man accused of raping his 16-year-old girlfriend, parties in consensual relationship

Bombay High Court: In a bail application filed by a 22-year-old man under Section 439 ¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) accused of raping his 16-year-old girlfriend, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application holding that the parties were prima facie in a long-standing consensual relationship which did not amount to an offence that would justify his custody.

Background

The victim and the accused knew each other for four years prior to filing the FIR, and they were in a relationship for two years. They used to visit each other’s homes and venture together to various locations. Allegedly, one day, she was called by the accused to his home under the guise of going on an excursion, but she was instead forced into establishing a sexual relationship with him, on which she remained silent. Similar incidents followed, which led to her becoming pregnant, and subsequently, got it terminated. After the termination, the incidents continued, but the victim obliged.

Subsequently, the victim’s father informed the authorities about his daughter’s medical termination of pregnancy, which led to the police tracing and sending her to an ashram. Upon medical examination ordered by the Child Welfare Committee, it was discovered that the victim was 5 weeks pregnant for the second time.

Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the accused under Sections 376 ², 376(3)³ and 376(2)(n)⁴ of the Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Analysis

The Court stated that prima facie, it appeared that the acts between the parties were consensual since they were in a love relationship for 2 years and a physical relationship for 15 months. It seemed from the record that the victim was in love with the accused and developed physical relations with him. In this regard, the Court referred to S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 36, which dealt with the evolution of the impressionable age of girls and boys who may tend to be provoked by the compelling demand of a relationship, and Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6204, wherein the Court held that consent of the minor prosecutrix was a mitigating circumstance for the Trial Court to consider, especially while dealing with bail applications.

The Court said that in cases like the present one, to continue further incarceration of the accused, it was crucial to consider whether the act between the parties was violent or otherwise, which in the present case was consensual. Another mitigating factor was whether there were any criminal antecedents, which, in the present case, were none.

The Court reiterated that while deciding a Bail Application, a Court had to keep in mind the principle rule of bail, which was to ascertain whether the accused is likely to appear before the Court for trial. There were other factors, such as the gravity of the offence, the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence while on bail, whether he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, and antecedents, which were required to be considered in such cases.

The Court held that the material placed on record did not indicate that the accused used force on the victim. Thus, the accused had made a strong case for bail since a boy and girl of a similar age group involved in a long-standing consensual love relationship did not make it an offense of a nature that would justify his custody.

The Court remarked,

“Applicant is not a sexual predator but a young person who was involved in a consensual relationship which is admitted by the victim. Both the parties were of the age to have a reasonable understanding of the import of their conduct, and despite that, had engaged in the said act over a substantial period of time.”

The Court also highlighted that in multiple decisions, the Supreme Court and High Court had favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial, especially in consensual relationships, so that the regressive influences of the jail environment could be avoided, keeping in mind the principle of best interest.

Thus, the application was allowed, and the accused was granted regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 15,000.

[Mohammed Ajaan Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 308, decided on 13-02-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the applicant: Viral Mukte and Bilal A. Motorwala

For the respondents: APP M.S. Bajoria and Gargi Warunjikar