Allowed

Hitesh Eknath Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Oct 2012BA/1479/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail filed by a 22-year-old accused charged with offences under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 IPC involving a 14-year-old girl. The court granted bail with conditional restrictions on contacting the victim and residing in a specific taluka.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, on conditions to stay outside Uran Taluka, report monthly, and avoid contact with the victim.

Hitesh Eknath Kadu Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 ba1479-2012

¶2

rpa

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1479 OF 2012

¶5

Hitesh Eknath Kadu .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Nitin Sejpal with Ms. Pooja Bhojne for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, A. P. P. for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2012.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This is an application for bail filed by one 22 years old young

¶10

man who had sexually intercourse with a 14 year old girl over a period of time some where from February 2011 till 26^th April, 2012. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed against the Applicant for offences punishable under Section 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical report shows that the victim was habituated to intercourse and that the history given by the victim was that she herself ran away with the Applicant and that she was having sexual relations with the Applicant for six months. The learned A.P.P has very strong objection to the Applicant being released on bail. He submits that if the Applicant released on bail

¶11

2 ba1479-2012

¶12

he would repeat the act. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the would stay outside Uran taluka and would keep himself always away from the victim, would not communicate with the victim on telephone or by any other means. In view of this, since the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, given the nature of the allegations made, the Applicant be released on bail. The Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) on the condition the Applicant shall stay outside Uran Taluka and give his new address to the Investigating officer and shall report before the police station nearest to his new home on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 and 1.00 p.m. till the trial is over for interrogation. He shall scrupulously avoid any sort of contacts with the victim, till the trial is completed.

¶13

The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.

¶14

3 ba1479-2012

¶15

The Application accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶16

(R. C. CHAVAN, J.)

Hitesh Eknath Kadu v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Eknath Kadu 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

Dattatraya Sakharam Surwase and Anr. Vs Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Centre Ltd. and Anr.

Dattatraya Sakharam Surwase and Anr. Vs Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Centre Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Global Trade Finance Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manishkumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Alias Pappu Bhikaji Sonwane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Pandurang Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra