Allowed

Chedilal @ Jaiprakash Sumaru Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jun 2006APPLN/1888/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application under Section 363, 366, 375, 376 IPC read with 34 IPC, the High Court directed the release of the accused on ₹20,000 bail subject to monthly reporting until trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to reporting once in a month on the first Monday of each month.

Chedilal @ Jaiprakash Sumaru Patel Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1888 OF 2006

¶4

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶5

 Mr.V.V.Purwant holding for Mr.
 R.D.Suryawanshi for the applicant.

¶6

 Ms.S.V.GAjare, APP. for the State.

¶7

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 05/6/2006.

¶8

 P.C.

¶9

 1. This is an application for grant of

¶10

 bail. The applicant is shown as an
 accused in CR. No.I/137/2005

¶11

 registered at Ambarnath Police Station

¶12

 for offence punishable under Section
 363, 366, 375, 376 read with 34 of the
 I.P.C. Police registered the crime
 after an order under Section 156(3) of
 the Cr.P.C. was passed. On 1.3.2006
 statement of the prosecutrix Saroj who

¶13

 at the relevant time was 15 years was

¶14

 recorded. From perusal of her
 statement, it appears that Saroj Kori
 was having physical relationship with

¶15

:2:

¶16

 the present applicant since the year
 2004. She conceived from this
 relationship and has undergone medical
 termination of pregnancy. Even
 thereafter in the year 2005 she went
 alongwith the applicant . As per her
 statement, the applicant promised to

¶17

 marry her and they were stayed together

¶18

 in a rented premises at Waransi. The
 applicant has been in jail since
 19.3.2006. The medical test of the
 girl has been conducted. Taking an
 over all view of the matter, the
 applicant is entitled for bail. The
 A.P.P. also states that the

¶19

 investigation is already completed. In
 the circumstances, it is directed that

¶20

 the applicant may be released on bail
 in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one
 surety in the like amount subject to
 the condition that he should report to
 the Investigation Officer, Ambarnath
 Police Station once in a month on very
 first Monday till the conclusion of the
 trial. Application is disposed of.

¶21

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Chedilal @ Jaiprakash Sumaru Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chedilal @ Jaiprakash Sumaru Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs Sultan Dharani and Anr.

The State (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Ravsaheb Kalkahire and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Kumar Bahalla and Another . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Mahesh Machindranath Golunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Mahadev Mancharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra