Authored By Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court, in its order dated December 5, 2024, rejected the interim bail application of a 73-year-old man, Bhalchandra Shankar Mhatre, convicted of raping and impregnating his intellectually disabled house help. The application, part of an appeal against his 20-year sentence, was heard by Justice M.M. Sathaye, who ruled that there was prima facie evidence indicating attempts to cover up the crime and suppress the victim’s pregnancy. The Court held that the victim’s consent was immaterial, as her intellectual quotient (IQ) was found to be 42%, classifying her as mentally disabled.

The prosecution's case detailed that in January 2017, the victim, who assisted her mother in her work as a domestic helper in the applicant's home, was raped by Mhatre while his wife was away. The assaults resulted in her pregnancy. It was further alleged that Mhatre, along with his wife and sister-in-law, attempted to pressure the victim and her mother into terminating the pregnancy, even offering monetary compensation to suppress the matter. A formal complaint was eventually filed, leading to Mhatre’s arrest on March 22, 2017.

During the trial, the Sessions Court convicted Mhatre in September 2022 for multiple counts of rape under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l), and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.

Mhatre’s counsel, Advocate Aniket Vagal, argued that there were discrepancies in the collection of DNA samples and highlighted his client’s advanced age and deteriorating health conditions, including diabetes and hypertension. He submitted that Mhatre had already spent over seven years in custody and cited precedents where bail was granted under similar circumstances.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, R.D. Humane, opposed the application, presenting DNA evidence that conclusively established Mhatre as the father of the victim’s child. The prosecution also highlighted documented attempts by the applicant and his family to intimidate the victim and suppress the incident. Advocate Harshad Inamdar, representing the victim, argued that the gravity of the offense and the vulnerability of the victim warranted the rejection of the bail plea.

Justice Sathaye rejected the interim bail application after examining the evidence. The Court noted, “There is material to indicate prima facie that attempts were made to hush up the incident and get rid of the pregnancy. Though the victim was 23 years old at the time of the incident (based on birth certificate Ex. 100), she has been found to be mentally retarded, and her IQ has been found to be 42% as per psychiatrist report Ex. 69. Therefore, prima facie, the consent aspect is not material.”

The Court further observed that the DNA report (Ex. 120) conclusively established Mhatre’s paternity and dismissed the applicant’s claims of procedural discrepancies in sample collection. Justice Sathaye remarked that the precedents cited by the applicant’s counsel were distinguishable, as the present case involved a serious offense with clear evidence of coercion and suppression attempts.

While rejecting the bail plea, the Court took into account Mhatre’s advanced age and directed an expedited hearing of his appeal, which had been admitted in November 2023. Justice Sathaye stated, “Considering the age of the applicant, the hearing of the appeal is expedited.”

Case Title: Bhalchandra Shankar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 176 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1282 of 2023
Bench: Justice M.M. Sathaye

[Read/Download order]