Allowed

Sachin Ramlal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC25 Jul 2013APPLN/1983/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed bail applications filed by three individuals and an application for permission to assist the Appropriate Prosecutor. The court granted bail after noting the completion of investigation on specific allegations and the lack of bad antecedents, fixing surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing PR of Rs. 50,000/ with one solvent surety. Prohibition on tampering witnesses or approaching prosecutrix. Permission to assist APP allowed.

Sachin Ramlal Agrawal Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3610 OF 2013

¶5

Pandharinath s/o. Pundlik Patil

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for State.

¶11

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1983 OF 2013

¶12

Sachin s/o. Ramlal Agrawal ....Applicant.

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶15

....Respondent.

¶16

Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for State. Mr. P.P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶17

WITH

¶18

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3066 OF 2013

¶19

Kavita Vijay Katkade ....Applicant.

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State of Maharashtra

¶22

....Respondent.

¶23

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶24

¶25

Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for State.

¶26

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3762 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3066 OF 2013

¶27

Prachi Raosaheb Keroji Mungse (Minor girl and victim of the offence)

¶28

....Applicant.

¶29

Versus

¶30

Kavita Vijay Katkade and Anr.

¶31

....Respondents.

¶32

Mr. P.P. Chavan, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. D.R Kale, APP for State.

¶33

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 25th July, 2013.

¶34

ORDER :

¶35

First three applications are filed for relief of bail and fourth application is filed by the original complainant for permission to assist the learned APP. Both the sides are heard.

¶36

The crime is registered on the basis of report given by the prosecutrix. The report came to be given on 29.1.2013 and on that day, the prosecutrix gave her age as 15 years. It is her

¶37

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶38

¶39

contention that her father is a patient and as his kidneys have failed, she requires atleast Rs. 1850/- per day for his treatment. It is her case that she was in search of work. It is her case that she came across one Sapna alias Pranita Patil, resident of Canada Corner, Nashik. It is her case that when she meet this woman, this woman took her to Ganesh Choudhary and Bebibai Choudhary of Dhule. It is her case that these two persons had promised her to give Rs. 2000/- per day as the wages and they had said that she would be required to do whatever work they would ask her to do.

¶40

The prosecutrix has made allegations that she started staying in the house of Bebibai Choudhary and there aforesaid two persons started compelling her to work as prostitute. It is her case that this way, she lived there for many days, but these two persons did not give her any money. It is her case that she tried to ran away from this place, but she was virtually confined in the house. She tried to ran away from this place on 28.1.2013 and police caught hold of her. In the report given on 29.1.2013, she made allegations that the owner of shop of Navtez Bajarwala, who had round face, was also visiting as a customer and he had taken sexual intercourse with her. It was submitted that the applicant from proceeding bearing Criminal Application No. 1983/2013 was described as the owner of Navtez shop by the prosecutrix.

¶41

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶42

¶43

In view of the nature of allegations, the crime was registered for offences 363, 365, 366 (A), 376 etc. of I.P.C. and for the offence under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

¶44

During the course of investigation police recorded many supplementary statements of the prosecutrix. In the supplementary statement dated 28.2.2013, she took the name of applicant Kavita Katkade (proceeding bearing Criminal Application No. 3066/2013) and she made allegations that this lady had sent her to Dhule with aforesaid Sapna Patil. It is her case that due to this applicant, she was reached to the house of Bebibai Choudhary, where she was compelled to do prostitution business. Thus, the supplementary statement came to be given after about one month of the report given by the prosecutrix to police. In the supplementary statement she contended that applicant Kavita Katkade had said that the prosecutrix will be required to prepare Chapatis at Dhule and by doing the said work, she can earn Rs. 1000/- per day. The papers did not show that after that day Katkade was in touch with the prosecutrix or with Babebai Choudhary. The learned APP submitted that there are some statements of neighbours of Katkate and they show that this

¶45

¶46

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶47

woman is in such business and complaints are received from neighbours that unknown persons are visiting her place in Nashik. However, the learned APP admitted that no similar case was registered against Katkate in the past. This is the first case against Katkate.

¶48

In the supplementary statement dated 9.3.2013, the prosecutrix made allegations against Babebai Choudhary that she was giving her injections, due to which she used to become unconscious. It is her allegation that after giving such injections, Bebibai was sending customers to her. She has then made allegations against applicant from the first proceeding, who is medical practitioner. She has made allegations that this applicant used to give treatment to her by giving injections etc. In the first report given on 29.1.2013 the name of this medical practitioner was not taken and in one supplementary statement, she has made allegations that Bebibai Choudhary was giving her injections. The name of this doctor was taken very late and it appears that police recorded so many supplementary statements of the prosecutrix. Every time she gave more names and it appears that police started proceeding against the persons whose names were given by prosecutrix in supplementary statements.

¶49

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶50

¶51

This Court has gone through the record of medical examination. There are two certificates showing that the age of prosecutrix which was ascertained on the basis of clinical and radiological examination. In one report, the opinion is given that her age is 17 years, plus minus six months and in another report the age is given as 17 years, plus minus one year. The learned APP submitted that school leaving certificate supports the contention of the prosecutrix. No record like birth certificate is collected by the investigating agency.

¶52

The applicants are behind bar for quite some time now and it can be said that police have completed investigation atleast in respect of allegations made as against the applicants. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicants behind bars. No bad antecedents were shown to this Court by giving record of other criminal cases. The circumstance that many supplementary statements of the prosecutrix are recorded by the police needs to be kept in mind while considering such applications.

¶53

So, the first three applications filed for bail are allowed. The applicants from these three proceedings are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty

¶54

Cri. Appln. Nos. 3610/13 & ors

¶55

¶56

thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount. They are not to tamper the prosecution witnesses. They are not to go to the vicinity of the place where the prosecutrix is living.

¶57

The application filed for permission to assist APP is

¶58

also allowed.

¶59

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶60

ssc/

Sachin Ramlal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramlal Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balasaheb Sambhaji Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saleha Begum Shaikh Shahid Ahmed@ Saleha Begum Mohammad Sattar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Girish Uttamchand Nagsi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Deoram Kamble Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rajendra Anil Mayur Vs the State of Maharashtra