Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Application No. 367 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent-accused Aakash Sandhi Bindu by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in Criminal Bail Application No. 119 of 2025 arising out of C.R. No. 1309 of 2024 registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station. The accused, along with two others, was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which include gang rape and assault. The victim-complainant filed Intervention Application (St) No. 19317 of 2025, which the High Court allowed. The Sessions Court had granted bail on 24 February 2025, noting that the medical examination of the victim showed no fresh injuries on private parts, there was a prior relationship between the informant and one accused, and the accused's marriage was scheduled for 1 March 2025. The State challenged this order, contending that the trial court failed to properly appreciate medical evidence, ignored the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, overlooked recovery of a mobile phone containing indecent photos of the victim from accused no. 1, disregarded the statement of the victim's uncle, and failed to consider the gravity of the offence carrying a minimum punishment of 20 years. The intervenor supported the State, arguing that common intention to commit gang rape was implicit from the conduct of all accused, a ladies undergarment was found at the spot, and the flat was rented to the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused defended the bail order, pointing to discrepancies between the FIR and the Section 164 statement, alleged improvement in the victim's version, and CCTV timing inconsistencies. The High Court, after perusing the record, observed that the impugned order required intercession as the accused was enlarged on bail without examining all material aspects in the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ajwar v. Waseem to reiterate that a superficial application of bail parameters undermines the gravity of the offence and that an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is open to interference by the superior court. The judgment excerpt ends before the final operative order, but the High Court clearly indicated that the bail order required cancellation or interference.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Perverse Orders - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439(1) - The High Court examined whether bail granted by Sessions Court should be cancelled because the trial court ignored material evidence and gravity of offence. It held that an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court, and bail can be revoked if the courts below have ignored relevant material or not looked into the gravity of the offence or impact on society. (Paras 8-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Grant of Bail - Serious Offences - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, 3(5) - The Court noted that the accusations included gang rape, assault, and minimum punishment of 20 years, and that the trial court failed to consider medical evidence, Section 164 statement, recovery of mobile phone with indecent photos, and witness statement. It observed that the bail order was passed without examining all material aspects in the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet. (Paras 4-5, 8) C) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Injuries and Absence of Fresh Injuries - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, 3(5) - The trial court held that absence of fresh injuries on private parts negated incident despite external injuries and head injury; the High Court found this superficial and contrary to medical report showing physical violence. (Paras 3, 4) D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Gang Rape - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, 3(5) - The intervenor submitted that common intention was implicit from conduct, presence of ladies undergarment at spot, and rented flat; the High Court considered these submissions while noting the trial court did not examine all material. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bail granted by the Sessions Court on 24 February 2025 should be cancelled on the grounds that the trial court ignored material evidence, misappreciated medical evidence, and failed to consider the gravity of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Final Decision
The provided judgment excerpt does not include the final operative order; the High Court observed on 30 September 2025 that the impugned bail order requires intercession and proceeded to review Supreme Court precedents on cancellation of bail, indicating that cancellation was warranted.
Law Points
- Cancellation of bail is permissible when bail order is perverse or ignores relevant material
- Superior court can revoke bail if lower court ignored gravity of offence or impact on society
- Bail order should disclose factors considered by the court
- At bail stage only prima facie case to be examined but serious offences require consideration of nature of accusations
- gravity
- role of accused
- and impact on society
