Allowed

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2015BA/570/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted bail to Subroto Nilomal Vaidya, an accused faced with charges of kidnapping, rape, and forcing prostitution of a minor under various IPC and POCSO sections. The court noted the prosecutrix addressed him as husband and stated no grievance, leading to bail on conditions of bond, residence, and no further criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties of like amount, abiding by conditions not to leave Kolhapur and no other criminal activity.

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

912-ba-570-2015.doc

¶2

Vishal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.570 OF 2015

¶5

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Anand Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 17, 2015

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366-A, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3, 5 and 9 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act in C.R. No. 124 of 2013 registered with Juna Rajwada police station, Kolhapur.

¶10

1 / 4

¶11

912-ba-570-2015.doc

¶12

It is the case of the prosecution that the offence has taken

¶13

place during the period from 21^st May, 2013 to 25^th June, 2013 at More-Mane Nagar, Kalamba, Kolhapur. The offence is registered on 28^th June, 2013. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix is a minor girl. She was seduced and kidnapped from Kolkata and brought at Kolhapur by the applicant/accused and co-accused. She was staying with two ladies namely Lucky and Payal. At that time, the applicant/accused committed rape on the prosecutrix against her consent and she was forced in the business of prostitution. The applicant/accused was arrested on 10^th July, 2013 and since then he is detained. Hence, this bail application.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is the husband of the prosecutrix. He pointed out the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He pointed out that, in the said statement she has addressed the applicant throughout, as her husband. There is no allegation made by the prosecutrix in her statement that the applicant/accused forced her for prostitution. He is innocent and he has not committed any offence.

¶15

2 / 4

¶16

912-ba-570-2015.doc

¶17

The learned prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submits that the applicant/accused is from West Bengal. In the first information report, the prosecutrix has stated about the involvement of the applicant/accused in the commission of the crime. She was minor at the relevant time and she was forced to do the prostitution.

¶18

Perused the first information report and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that in the first information report, she has alleged that the applicant/accused though married with her, has forced her for the prostitution. However in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate, she gave explanation about involving the applicant/accused as due to pressure and whatever she has stated is out of pressure. She has addressed the applicant/accused as her husband. The age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was 17 years and 9 month. She has specifically mentioned that she has no grievance against the applicant/accused as he did not force her at any time. The applicant/accused is in prison since last two years.

¶19

3 / 4

¶20

912-ba-570-2015.doc

¶21

In view of the above, prima facie considering the nature of allegations and considering the period for which the applicant is detained, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused.

¶22

Hence, I grant bail as under:

¶23

a) The applicant/accused be enlarged on bail upon furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) with two solvent surety/s in the like amount; b) The applicant/accused shall not leave Kolhapur city till completion of the trial without permission of the Court. c) The applicant/accused shall not indulge in any other criminal activity.

¶24

The application stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

4 / 4

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya 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

Shri. Vikas Vijay Sawhney Vs Smt. Komal Vikas Sawhney

Nitin Babaso Chougule and Anr. Vs Amar Anant Nitawe and Aaanr.

Nitin Babaso Chougule and Anr. Vs Amar Anant Nitawe and Aaanr.

Vijay Sadasshiv Bhilare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Maruti Harane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Akshay Shivaji Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra