Dismissed

Sanjay @ Sandip S/O Bhagwanrao Karwande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jun 2015APPLN/2124/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application for bail filed by an applicant accused of serious sexual offences against a 14-year-old minor. The court held that the nature of the offence made the applicant unworthy of bail, despite the length of custody already served.

What did the court decide?

Small Criminal Application No. 2124 of 2015 dismissed; Applicant remains in custody.

Sanjay @ Sandip S/O Bhagwanrao Karwande Vs the… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

crap2124.15

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2124 OF 2015 [Sanjay @ Sandip s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande Vs The State of Maharashtra]

¶6

¶7

Shri G.G.Kadam, advocate for applicant Smt. Pratibha Bharad, A.P.P. for respondent

¶8

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th June, 2015

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] This is an application for bail.

¶11

2] The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.

¶12

20 of 2014, registered with Rural Police Station Basmath, District Hingoli for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(I), 506(2) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; under Sections 3, 4 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶13

3] The prosecutrix is minor girl. She is only 14 years of age.

¶14

4] According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the investigating agency has already completed investigation and charge sheet is filed, and therefore, further custodial presence of the applicant is not necessary. It is stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since last eight months. Merely because the applicant is languishing in jail since eight months is not a criteria for releasing the applicant on bail. The offence alleged to have committed by the applicant is

¶15

¶16

crap2124.15

¶17

very serious in nature. The custody of the prosecutrix, minor girl, was handed over to the present applicant and present applicant took her away from the village and she was taken at Nanded city, wherein she was subjected to physical atrocities by the present applicant.

¶18

5] I have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. It clearly spells out serious offence against the applicant. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code is upto life. In that view of the matter, this court refrains itself from exercising discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶19

6] Application is dismissed.

¶20

7] The observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and are restricted to this application only and the learned Judge of the court below shall not get influenced himself by the said observations while deciding the matter on merits.

¶21

(V.M.DESHPANDE, J.)

¶22

dbm/crap2124.15

Sanjay @ Sandip S/O Bhagwanrao Karwande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Sandip S/O Bhagwanrao Karwande 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

Vishal Somnath Puri Vs 1 Union of India and Anr.

Dr. Meher Datta Pathrikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kerba S/O Nagoji Jatewad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pramod S/O Madanlal Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilu S/O Ramji Bele Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqbal S/O Janu Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra