Allowed

Subhash S/O Vaijnath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2016APPLN/1091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under POCSO and IPC 354D, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) accepted call detail records established contact and threats by the applicant, concluded custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and made an interim protection order absolute on same terms.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted vide order dated 17.02.2016 was made absolute; the application was allowed and disposed of.

Subhash S/O Vaijnath Jadhav Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1091 OF 2016

¶3

Subhash s/o Vaijnath Jadhav,
Age : 18 years, Occu. Student,
R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani

¶4

APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Inspector,
Police Station, Gangakhed

¶7

RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶9

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 06/04/2016

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

1. Heard both sides.

¶12

2.The present applicant who is apprehending his

¶13

arrest at the hands of Gangakhed Police Station,

¶14

district Parbhani in Crime No. 45/2016, registered for
the offences punishable under section 354D of the Indian

¶15

Penal Code and under section 7 and 8 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, is praying for his

¶16

release on bail in the event of his arrest.

¶17

3.The complaint of 17 years old victim would show
that the present applicant always used to make a phone
call to her on her mobile and used to use obscene

¶18

language. Ultimately on 27th January, 2016, from his
mobile, he threatened that the victim-girl would be
destroyed within two minutes. At that time, her cousin
was present. Even her maternal uncle had seen the
present applicant following the victim while proceeding
to college. In the circumstances, the crime came to be
registered.

¶19

4.As the allegations are regarding the phone call
on the mobile, in view of the query made by this Court,
the learned A.P.P. has collected the call details
records (C.D.Rs.) through the investigating officer and

¶20

the said C.D.Rs. alongwith the report of the
investigating officer are today filed on the record.
Both these documents are accepted on record and
collectively marked "X" for the purpose of
identification.

¶21

5.These C.D.Rs. would show that there used to be

¶22

conversation between the victim and the present

¶23

applicant for a comparatively longer period like 443
seconds, 107 seconds, etc.

¶24

6.Exhibit-C to the present application would show
that the date of birth of the present applicant is 4th
May, 1997. Though in the FIR, the victim has given her
age as 17 years, the report of the investigating officer
at "X" would show that she is 17 years and 7 months old.

¶25

7.Considering all the material on record, without
making any comment on merit of the case, in my view, the
custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not
required. Hence, the following order:-

¶26

8.The interim protection granted by this Court to
the present applicant vide order dated 17th February,
2016 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and
conditions.

¶27

9.The present application is accordingly allowed
and disposed of.

¶28

npj/criapln1091-2016

Subhash S/O Vaijnath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash S/O Vaijnath Jadhav 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

Ismalil S/O Kashimsab Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagyawant @ Lala Dashrath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Varsha W/O. Rajendra Wadavrao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok S/O. Sampatrao Kutwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sona @ Arjun S/O. Vishvnath Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nidan Jalamsing Shikalikar Vs the State of Maharashtra