Bombay High Court
Rushikesh Mangalsing Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9060
REVN-59-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2025
1. Rushikesh S/o Mangalsingh Patil
Age: 23 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Ravla Tq. Soygaon
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Akash S/o Mangalsingh Patil
Age: 20 years, Occ. Agricultural
R/o Ravla Tq. Soygaon
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Anandsingh S/o Chandrasingh Patil
Age: 41 years, Occ. Agricultural
R/o Ravla Tq. Soygaon
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Sahebrao Khushalsingh Patil
Age: 28 years, Occ. Agricultural
R/o Ravla Tq. Soygaon
Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Amarsingh Chandrasingh Patil
Age: 43 years, Occ. Agricultural
R/o Fattepur, Tq. Jamner
Dist. Jalgaon ...Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ
R/o Ravla Tq. Soygaon
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
***
• Mr. K. A. Ingle, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mr. B. V. Virdhe, APP for the Respondent/State
• Mr. S. P. Salgar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 (appointed
through legal aid)
***
PAGE 1 OF 5
REVN-59-2025.odt
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 04, 2026
ORDER:
1. Original Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in Crime No. 108 of 2023
registered at Fardapur Police Station, Aurangabad have pressed instant
Revision urging to discharge them from above crime under Section 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners pointed out
hat, there is false implication. That, main accused is not before this
Court. That, there are allegations that, victim was 17 years of age. That,
there were allegations of outraging of modesty but such allegations are
directed against accused no.1. That, there was previous animosity. As
against present Revision Petitioners are concerned, there is merely
issuing threats and merely beating father of the girl. That, the
statement of the girl also shows that, after the alleged episode of
outraging modesty, that too by accused no.1, name of the present
Petitioners have surfaced. That, allegations are vague and no specific
role is attributed to any of the Petitioners and, therefore, with such
material, it is the case is put forth that, it is a fit case for discharge but
learned Trial Court failed to consider the same.
PAGE 2 OF 5
REVN-59-2025.odt
3. The above Application has been opposed by learned APP and
Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, who pointed out that, there is
statement of the girl and also statement of independent eye witnesses,
roles are clear, statements recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal
Procedure are consistent, charge is already framed and now trial is
about to commence. For above reasons, Revision is sought to be
dismissed.
4. Heard. Perused the papers.
5. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and
proper to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge
application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled
position that, at such stage, Court dealing with such application is
merely expected to determine existence of prima facie material for
proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons face trial.
Material gathered during investigation is expected to be sifted with
limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor meticulous
analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the only duty of
Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie material suggesting
existence of essential ingredients for the offences, which are alleged to
be committed.
PAGE 3 OF 5
REVN-59-2025.odt
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others. (2014) 11
SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC
148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC
651.
6. It appears that, above crime is registered on the strength of
statement of a girl aged 17, who reported that, on 28.07.2023 at around
09.45 am, while she was proceeding with her father on motorcycle to
take admission for B.Com first year, at that time, it is alleged that,
Mangalsingh Patil and two others namely, Rushikesh and Akash
intercepted their way and her father was threatened to withdraw the
case or else, she would be done to death and on saying say, she stated
that, said Mangalsingh caught her hand and threatened to defame her
and scuffled with her. Thereafter, she reported that, son of
Mangalsingh, namely, Akash dealt blow with handle of axe on the head
of her father and caused bleeding injury. Then she stated that, relatives
PAGE 4 OF 5
REVN-59-2025.odt
of Mangalsingh, namely, Anandsingh, Sahebrao, Amarsingh came there
and they also beat her father. Therefore, present Revision Petitioners
are apparently named.
7. Crime is registered for offence under Sections 354, 354A,
143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 8
and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Charge-
sheet carries date of birth of victim and also her statement is recorded
under Section 164 CrPC, which prima facie seems to be consistent.
Therefore, in the light of availability of such material, it cannot be said
that, there is no material or allegations against present Petitioners so
as to extent benefit of discharge, more particularly, when learned
Counsel for Respondent pointed out that, when charge is framed and
answered by revision Petitioners.
8. In view of above, there being no merit in the Revision,
Revision Petition stands dismissed.
9. Fees of appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is to be
quantified by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad
as per rules.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 5 OF 5