Allowed

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Sept 2013BA/1356/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In In re Govind Magar Yadav alias Rahul, the High Court allowed a bail application filed under PITA Sections 4 and 5(ii). The applicant, arrested for trafficking offences, sought release citing a minor victim in the case and the completion of the initial investigation. The Court granted bail contingent on surety and conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail upon execution of a PR Bond of ₹25,000 with one or two local solvent sureties, subject to conditions not to interfere with victims or witnesses and to attend trial.

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA 1356-13.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1356 OF 2013

¶5

Govind Magar Yadav alias Rahul.Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶8

Mr.Aniket Vagal, Advocate, for the Applicant
Ms S.V.Gajare, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM:U.V.BAKRE, J.
DATE:25TH SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned APP for the
respondent – State.

¶12

2.The applicant was arrested on 11th May,

¶13

2013 by Malwani Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 4 & 5(ii) of
Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act (PITA).

¶14

3.Admittedly, charge sheet has already

¶15

been filed in the present matter. Therefore,

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

BA 1356-13.odt

¶18

presence of the applicant may not be required
for the purpose of investigation.

¶19

4.It is the contention of the learned

¶20

APP that one of the victims is a minor. It is
seen from the report of medical examination of
one of the victims in whose respect age is
mentioned as more than 17 years but less than

¶21

18 years. The learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon a Judgment in

¶22

Balasaheb v. The State of Maharashtra, reported
in 1994 CRI.L.J.3044, where in a Division Bench
of this Court has observed that according to
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology,
21st Edition, error in case of age based on
ossification test may be of +_ three years.
Admittedly, other victims are major. It is
also contended by the learned APP that

¶23

supplementary charge sheet is yet to be filed.
In this regard, the present applicant has

¶24

nothing to do with the filing of any
supplementary charge sheet. In my view, now,
the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

BA 1356-13.odt

¶27

5.In the result, the Bail Application is

¶28

allowed. The applicant in L.A.C.No.40 of 2013
shall be released on bail upon execution of
P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or

¶29

two local solvent sureties in the sum
aggregating to Rs.25,000/-, on the condition
that the applicant shall not interfere with
the victims, shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses and further, shall
attend the trial Court on all dates of
hearing.

¶30

6.The Bail Application stands disposed
of.

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Ramdas Jadhav Vs Satish Hari Kulkarni and Anr.

Alexander Nelson D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Ramkishor Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra