Allowed

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014ABA/1076/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the applicant faced charges under IPC and POCSO 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The court granted pre-arrest bail subject to strict conditions including surrendering his SIM card and excluding himself from meeting the victim.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant granted pre-arrest bail on condition of furnishing bond, cooperating with police, attending police station, surrendering SIM card, and not meeting the victim.

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3.ABA1076_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1076 OF 2014

¶5

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar … Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. D.B. Bhosale, P.S.I., Baramati City Police Station, Pune.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 5^th September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr. P.C., as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶12

It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, who is 14 years old, was sexually assaulted by the applicant/accused on 22^nd July, 2014. A query was made from the school to the complainant/father of victim that why the victim was not attending the school from 22^nd July, 2014, by hearing this the complainant was shocked, as the victim used to leave the house for the school and used to come back at around 5 p.m. during those days. When she was questioned by her father, she disclosed that on 22^nd

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

3.ABA1076_2014.doc

¶15

July, 2014 the applicant/accused showed her a video clip in his mobile when she was bathing and threatened her that she should not go to school otherwise he would throw acid on her, therefore, she stopped going to school and did not tell her parents out of fear. On the basis of information given by the victim, an offence was registered by the police in C.R. No. 343/2014 at Baramati City Police Station, Pune.

¶16

The learned counsel for th applicant/accused has submitted that he has been attending the police station, as interim protection was given to the applicant/accused. No such filming is done by him. The applicant/accused is ready to cooperate further. He has not committed any offence. He further submitted that if the filming is done and shown to her, then it is an offence under section 354C which is bailable.

¶17

Learned APP opposed the application. She submitted that the applicant/accused should hand over the SIM Card of his cell phone which he was using in July, 2014.

¶18

On perusal of the FIR and the statement of the victim, I grant prearrest bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(i) Application is allowed.

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

3.ABA1076_2014.doc

¶23

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

(iii) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Thursday between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the police.

¶25

(iv) The applicant/accused shall hand over the SIM Card of his cell phone which he was using in July 2014.

¶26

(v) The applicant/accused shall not meet or harass the

¶27

victim girl.

¶28

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

3 of 3

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar 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

Ganesh Yogesh Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra