Introduction

In a significant ruling that sharpens bail jurisprudence in the post–Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) era, the Bombay High Court (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) set aside and cancelled a bail order granted by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, to an accused in an alleged gang rape case. The primary proceeding was Criminal Application No. 367 of 2025—The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Sandhi Bindu—seeking cancellation of bail granted on 24 February 2025 in C.R. No. 1309 of 2024 (D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai). Alongside, the Court allowed Interim Application (St) No. 19317 of 2025—Saanen Kuresh Sutterwala v. The State of Maharashtra—permitting the victim/complainant to intervene.

The accused, along with two co-accused, faced allegations under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for which the Court highlighted a minimum punishment of 20 years in the case of gang rape. The High Court found that the Sessions Court granted bail on palpably irrelevant grounds—most notably the accused’s impending marriage—and without examining crucial materials in the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, including the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, medical evidence of injuries, and corroborative statements and spot panchnama.

The ruling reiterates and applies the Supreme Court’s recent directions in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 307) and AJWAR v. WASEEM ((2024) 10 SCC 768), underscoring that unreasoned or perverse bail orders—especially in grievous crimes—are susceptible to appellate interference and cancellation.

Key Issues

• Whether the Sessions Court’s grant of bail, premised inter alia on the accused’s impending marriage, was legally tenable.
• Whether the Sessions Court failed to consider material evidence (Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, medical report, spot panchnama, corroborative statements) that prima facie implicated the accused.
• What standards govern the appellate cancellation of bail orders, particularly in heinous offences such as gang rape.
• The scope for victim participation at the stage of bail cancellation.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court allowed the intervention of the victim/complainant.
• It found that the Sessions Court’s bail order was granted without examining all material placed on record via the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet.
• The Sessions Court had placed undue emphasis on two impermissible/insufficient considerations:
  • (a) The alleged absence of “fresh injuries” on the private parts of the victim despite the medical record showing head injury and other bodily injuries evidencing physical violence; and
  • (b) The accused’s impending marriage (scheduled in March 2025).
• The High Court held categorically that “impending marriage of an accused is not” a parameter for grant of bail, reaffirming settled law.
• Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court concluded the bail order was perverse, ignored material evidence, and failed to weigh the gravity of the offence. It therefore set aside the order and cancelled bail.
• The respondent-accused was directed to surrender within two days from the date of uploading of the order.

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The High Court anchored its reasoning in recent and foundational Supreme Court precedents governing bail and cancellation of bail:

• Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 307): The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s warning against a “superficial application of bail parameters” in grievous offences, noting that such orders undermine public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to address serious crimes. This emphasized the need for rigorous, reasoned scrutiny when liberty is weighed against grave allegations.
• AJWAR v. WASEEM ((2024) 10 SCC 768): Extensively relied upon for two core propositions:
  • Grant of Bail: Courts must consider the nature of accusations, manner of commission, gravity, role of the accused, antecedents, risk of tampering, likelihood of repetition, flight risk, potential obstruction of justice, and the overarching desirability of release.
  • Cancellation/Interference: Bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically; however, an unreasoned or perverse order—especially one ignoring relevant material or gravity—is open to interference by a superior court even absent post-bail misuse.
  The High Court transparently used these principles to hold that the Sessions Court ignored critical materials and relied on irrelevant considerations.
• P v. State of M.P. ((2022) 15 SCC 211) and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana ((1995) 1 SCC 349) (quoted within Ajwar):
  • While cancellation often considers supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty, appellate interference also lies where the grant order is illegal, perverse, or premised on irrelevant material. The High Court used this to justify cancellation without waiting for post-bail misconduct.
• Other cited authorities (as collated in Ajwar)—including Chaman Lal, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Masroor, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Neeru Yadav, Anil Kumar Yadav, and Mahipal—collectively reinforce:
  • the structured factors for bail determinations;
  • the imperative of reasoned orders that reflect judicial application of mind; and
  • the legitimacy of appellate correction where the lower court has ignored pivotal material or misconceived relevant considerations.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s intervention was rooted in a close engagement with the case record. Its reasoning proceeded along these lines:

• Material on record was not evaluated by the Sessions Court:
  • The prosecution placed before the Sessions Court a comprehensive bundle including the FIR, the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (judicial confession-like statement recorded by a Magistrate), medical evidence, the spot panchnama, and corroborative statements (e.g., the victim’s uncle and the landlord).
  • The High Court noted the Sessions Court’s failure to engage with these materials—particularly the consistency between the FIR and the Section 164 statement, and medical findings of injuries (head injury, scratch marks), which together indicated physical violence.
• Misplaced reliance on absence of genital injuries:
  • The Sessions Court emphasized there were “no fresh injuries” on the victim’s private parts. The High Court underscored that this ignores the totality of medical evidence, including significant head injury and other bodily injuries, and that the absence of genital injuries does not negate the prosecution’s case at the bail stage, especially when other evidence aligns.
• Irrelevant factor: impending marriage:
  • The Sessions Court stated the accused’s marriage scheduled in March 2025 as a ground for bail. The High Court declared unequivocally that impending marriage is not a parameter recognized by statute or precedent in bail determinations, particularly in heinous sexual offences. It found this consideration “somewhat troubling,” highlighting both its irrelevance and, as argued by the State, its dubious factual premise (the marriage had not been solemnized).
• Corroborative record ignored:
  • The High Court expressly referenced the spot panchnama (noting recovery of a pink ladies’ undergarment, liquor bottle, cigarette butts, hair scrunchy, bed-sheet, etc.) and the landlord’s statement confirming the premises were rented to the respondent-accused—facts with incriminating probative value at the prima facie stage. The State also flagged the recovery of a mobile phone with indecent photos of the victim (as part of the supplementary charge-sheet), underscoring the breadth of ignored material.
• Gravity of the offence and statutory minimum:
  • The Court emphasized the allegation of gang rape carrying a minimum punishment of 20 years, mandating heightened scrutiny under the bail parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.
• Perverse/unreasoned order warrants cancellation:
  • Applying Ajwar and Shabeen Ahmad, the Court held that an order that ignores relevant material and rests on irrelevant considerations is perverse and open to interference, even absent any post-bail misconduct by the accused.
• Outcome: The High Court set aside the bail order, cancelled bail, and directed the respondent-accused to surrender within two days.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

The decision carries several practical and doctrinal implications for bail jurisprudence and trial court practice, especially in serious sexual offence cases under the BNS:

• Reinforced constraints on “humanitarian” or personal-circumstance grounds: The Court’s categorical statement that “impending marriage … is not [a parameter]” for bail reaffirms that personal milestones have no independent legal weight in cases alleging grave offences. Trial courts are put on notice that such considerations risk appellate reversal.
• Demand for rigorous, reasoned bail orders in heinous crimes: The judgment underscores the need to explicitly engage with all material evidence—Section 164 statements, medical evidence beyond genital injury findings, corroborative witness statements, and objective seizure records (panchnama).
• Alignment with Supreme Court’s “perversity” doctrine: It strengthens the principle that higher courts will not hesitate to cancel bail where the lower court has ignored relevant materials or minimized the gravity of a serious offence.
• Victim participation recognized: By allowing the victim’s intervention, the Court reflects an evolving practice of respecting victim rights in bail proceedings, consistent with the trend in statutory and judicial recognition of victim’s participatory role.
• BNS-era continuity under Cr.P.C.: Despite the transition to the BNS, the Cr.P.C.’s bail framework (e.g., Section 439) and the Supreme Court’s doctrinal guardrails remain determinative. The message is clear: codal changes do not dilute the rigor required in bail decisions for heinous offences.
• Institutional message on public confidence: Echoing Shabeen Ahmad, the Court’s approach promotes the perception of justice by refusing to normalize leniency through “superficial” bail determinants in grievous crimes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement: A statement made by a witness or victim before a Magistrate. It carries high probative value at the prima facie stage because it is recorded under judicial oversight and reduces the risk of police-induced variations.
• Spot Panchnama: A contemporaneous record of the scene of offence or seizure, prepared in the presence of independent witnesses (panchas). It documents observations and items found/seized, anchoring the prosecution narrative in physical facts.
• Perverse/Unreasoned Bail Order: An order that either fails to consider relevant material, misapplies settled legal principles, or relies on irrelevant considerations. Such an order is susceptible to appellate interference and cancellation.
• Cancellation of Bail vs. Rejection of Bail: Rejection is a refusal to grant bail in the first instance. Cancellation involves revoking bail already granted. While cancellation often looks for misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, it also lies where the original grant was illegal or perverse.
• Gravity of Offence (Minimum Punishment): The statutory severity (here, minimum 20 years for gang rape as noted by the Court) is a critical factor in bail analysis because it heightens the risk profile and the societal interest in ensuring a fair, unimpeded trial.
• Irrelevant Personal Factors: Personal milestones such as impending marriage are not recognized as legitimate bail parameters, particularly in serious offences. Bail must be determined by legal criteria, not personal circumstance.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision to cancel bail in The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Sandhi Bindu (with victim intervention in Saanen Kuresh Sutterwala v. State of Maharashtra) is a clear reaffirmation of established bail doctrine: material evidence cannot be sidelined, and irrelevant personal considerations—like impending marriage—have no place in adjudicating liberty in cases alleging heinous crimes such as gang rape. By methodically applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Shabeen Ahmad and Ajwar, the Court identified and corrected a perverse bail order that minimized the gravity of the offence and ignored critical evidence (including a consistent Section 164 statement, medical findings of physical violence, and corroborative spot and witness materials).

The ruling will likely influence trial courts to craft reasoned, evidence-engaged bail orders, particularly in serious sexual offences under the BNS, and will embolden prosecuting agencies and victims to seek cancellation when bail orders deviate from settled parameters. Ultimately, the decision sends a robust institutional message: public confidence in the criminal justice system relies on principled, not perfunctory, bail adjudication.

Key Takeaways

• Impending marriage is not a legitimate bail parameter in heinous offences.
• Absence of genital injuries cannot, by itself, discount a rape allegation; courts must consider the entirety of medical and corroborative evidence.
• Bail orders that ignore relevant materials or rely on irrelevant considerations are perverse and liable to cancellation.
• Victim participation in bail-cancellation proceedings is both permissible and constructive.
• Trial courts must expressly address Ajwar-guided factors—gravity, role, risk, and evidence—when deciding bail in grievous crimes.

Case Metadata

• Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
• Bench: Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
• Date: 30 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:41589
• Primary Proceeding: Criminal Application No. 367 of 2025 (For Cancellation of Bail): The State of Maharashtra v. Aakash Sandhi Bindu
• Intervention: Interim Application (St) No. 19317 of 2025: Saanen Kuresh Sutterwala v. The State of Maharashtra
• Police Station/C.R. No.: D.N. Nagar Police Station, C.R. No. 1309 of 2024
• Statutory Context: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 164, 439)