Allowed

Vaijenath Venkatrao Kaure v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012APPLN/3934/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for bail under Sections 363, 366, and 378 of the IPC, the court considered the petitioner's application after the completion of investigation in a serious case involving abduction and sexual assault on a minor. The court held the petitioner eligible for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to stringent conditions.

Vaijenath Venkatrao Kaure Vs the State of Mah — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3934 OF 2012 "Vaijenath s/o. Venkatrao Kaure Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

Mr. Sachin S. Panale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R.P. Phatke, APP for respondents.

¶7

CORAM :- M.T. JOSHI,J.

¶8

DATE :- 8TH OCTOBER, 2012.

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] The present applicant, who is arrested in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2010, punishable under Sections 363,366,378 of IPC, is praying for his release on bail. Later on the case has been registered as Sessions Case No. 71 of 2012.

¶11

2] The allegations are that on 10^th July, 2010, he had abducted a young girl on 14 years and 3 months old (prosecutrix) from the custody of her parents and thereafter she was taken to Pune. Thereafter, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On 12.7.2010, however, the prosecutrix was found and thereupon, she filed the complaint alleging therein that she was seduced by the applicant.

¶12

3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations are that, he was absconding from the date of incident. In fact, he was outstation to earn for livelihood. He was also 19 years old at the time of alleged commission of offence. He, therefore, submits that the applicant be released on bail since the

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3934 OF 2012 "Vaijenath s/o. Venkatrao Kaure Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶16

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶17

¶18

investigation is complete.

¶19

4] Learned APP vehemently opposed the application.

¶20

5] Considering the fact that the investigation is complete and that the trial would take its own time, in my view, the applicant can be released by putting stringent conditions so that the applicant would be available for trial. Hence, the following order :-

¶21

[i] The applicant be released on his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and also on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶22

[M.T. JOSHI,J]

¶23

grt/-

Vaijenath Venkatrao Kaure v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijenath Venkatrao Kaure v. the State of Mah

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

Muzaffaroddin Abdul Quadar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Karbhari Sakharam Muley and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Sandip Dilip Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Chandrabhan Ragha Agle and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Dhondiram Narhari Munde Vs the State of Mah

Shivaji Uttam Jadhav Vs the State of Mah