Allowed

Sunita W/O Suresh Ingle and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Apr 2016APPLN/1569/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed bail for two female applicants charged with rape and abduction under various IPC and POCSO sections. The court granted bail considering they are women and the investigation was practically complete.

What did the court decide?

Both applicants released on bail upon executing bond and furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000 each.

Sunita W/O Suresh Ingle and Anr. Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapln1569-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1569 OF 2016

¶5

1. Sunita w/o Suresh Ingle, Age : 33 years. Occu. Household, R/o Goltekadi, District Pune

¶6

2. Sunanda w/o Atmaram Rajguru, Age : 55 years, Occu. Household, R/o Dighol, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar APPLICANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station Officer,
Jamkhed Police Station, Taluka
Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. Atul B. Hawale, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. U.S. Mote, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶11

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 01/04/2016

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

1. Heard both sides.

¶14

2.The present applicants, who are arrested by

¶15

Jamkhed Police Station, District Ahmednagar in Crime No.
I-18/2016, registered for the offences punishable under

¶16

section 366, 366A, 376, 342, 504, 506 read with section

¶17

34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of the

¶18

criapln1569-2016

¶19

¶20

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are
praying for their release on bail.

¶21

3.Both the present applicants were arrested on
14th February, 2016.

¶22

4.The FIR of the fifteen years and four months

¶23

old victim would show that she resides with her parents
in the village. Her parents have settled her marriage
with another person. However, she was not ready to
marry with the said person. Therefore, she consulted her
neighbour i.e. the present applicant No. 2 Sunanda.

¶24

Applicant Sunanda had suggested the son of the present
applicant No. 1, namely, Vikas as a suitable boy.

¶25

.Thereafter, however, it is alleged that

¶26

applicant No. 1 had not allowed her to have consultation
with her family members and at 2.00 p.m. in the noon on
24th December, 2015, she had taken her forcibly to Pune
i.e. the native place of the applicant No. 2, her
marriage was solemnized with said Vikas on 13th January,
2016 at Baudhavihar at Goltekdi, Pune and thereafter,
son of the applicant No. 1 forcibly committed sexual
intercourse with the victim by confining her for 5 to 6

¶27

3 criapln1569-2016

¶28

days. Thereafter, she requested the son of the said

¶29

applicant to take her to her home and accordingly, he
brought her to her home at village Dighol, Taluka
Jamkhed. Thereafter, said son Ashok without informing
the victim/complainant, left her. In the circumstances,
the complaint came to be filed.

¶30

5.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that the applicants are behind the bars since 14th
February, 2016. Both of them are women. The
investigation is practically complete. The contents in
the FIR itself are not logical. In the circumstances,
he submitted that the applicants be released on bail.

¶31

6.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application. He

¶32

submitted that the school leaving certificate collected
by the investigating officer would show that the victim

¶33

was fifteen years and four months old and in the
circumstances, the offence against the principal accused
of commission of rape is made out and the present
applicants have abetted the commission of the said
offence.

¶34

Considering the overall material on record,

¶35

7.

¶36

4 criapln1569-2016

¶37

since the applicants are women, the investigation is
practically complete and the trial may take its own
time, in my view, both the applicants deserve be
released on bail. Hence, the following order.

¶38

8. Both the applicants be released on bail in
Crime No. I-18/2016, registered with Jamkhed Police
Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable
under section 366, 366A, 376, 342, 504, 506 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
(rupees fifteen thousand) each and also upon furnishing
surety each in the like amount.

¶39

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

¶40

npj/criapln1569-2016

Sunita W/O Suresh Ingle and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita W/O Suresh Ingle and Anr. 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

Sham S/O. Angad Navale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jijabai W/O Kachru Nikam and Othr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindar S/O. Gorakhnath Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prasad S/O. Ashok Chambhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Mandanlal Pipada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh S/O. Shankar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra