BA/1118/2026 of MASTAN NABI SALAM NABI SHAH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS KHAPA NAGPUR on 13 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1118 OF 2026

MASTAN NABI SALAM NABI SHAH

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS KHAPA, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, Appearances, Court's

orders or directions and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr. S.S. Ali, Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. S.S. Dhote, APP for Non-Applicant No.1-State.

Ms. J.D. Sardar, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-Applicant No.2

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATED : 13th OCTOBER 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP

for the State as well as learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2/victim.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.162 of 2026, registered with Police Station Khapa, Dist. Nagpur Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 332(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant, from time to time, had extracted money from the informant in the tune of Rs.7 Lakhs. When the informant demanded return of the said amount, the applicant avoided the payment of the amount. It 2026:BHC-NAG:13769

is alleged that on 28.03.2026, in between 09.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., the applicant went to the house of the informant, who is 65 years of age, and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, without her consent and therefore, the FIR was lodged on 03.04.2026.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it appears from the FIR that the applicant did not return the amount of Rs.7 Lakhs to the informant, therefore, she has made serious allegations against the applicant. He submits that the alleged incident took place on 28.03.2026, however, the first information report was registered on 03.04.2026 i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident.

It further appears that due to monetary transactions between the parties and in order to recover the said amount, the said allegations are made by the informant. He submits that the applicant is 27 years of age and the informant is 65 years of age. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept said allegations and therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned APP and learned Counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), in which, she has specifically disclosed that the applicant

has extracted an amount of Rs.7 Lakhs from her, by taking undue advantage of her age and has not returned the said amount. In the said statement, she has also alleged that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her. Under such circumstances, merely because the applicant is 27 years of age and the informant is 65 years of age, that by itself is not sufficient to say that the applicant has not committed sexual intercourse with the informant. They submit that the delay in such matters happens since it is related to the character of the victim. They submit that, in the present case, the delay has been explained in the last paragraph of the first information report, wherein it is alleged that the applicant threatened the informant and that if she disclosed about the said incident, she will face embarrassment in her village. They submit that the applicant has committed serious offence against a woman and therefore, they pray for rejection of the application.

6.

Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, apparently, it appears that, in the first paragraph of the first information report, the informant has disclosed that the applicant initially obtained Rs.25,000/- from her and thereafter, from April 2025, he obtained a total amount of Rs.7 Lakhs from her overtime. In the FIR, it is alleged that, on 28.03.2026, at about 09.00 p.m. to 10.00

p.m., the applicant went to the house of the informant and has

committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. It also appears that the informant has explained the delay in the FIR.

7.

Though the allegation of rape is made, however, it cannot be ignored that there are monetary transactions between the applicant and the victim to the tune of Rs.7 Lakhs and it is alleged that same is not returned by the applicant. Now, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant is in jail since 03.04.2026.

Therefore, prima facie, I am of the considered opinion that a case is made out to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order.