Allowed

Uday S/O Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Oct 2016APPLN/2919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking bail in a kidnapping and rape case involving a minor, the court observed that the victim and applicant were in love and lived together without violence. Finding no grounds for evidence tampering, the court allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by executing Personal Bond of Rs. 30,000 and furnishing surety in like amount with conditions against tampering and threatening witnesses.

Uday S/O Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 ) cria2919.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2919 OF 2016

¶4

Uday s/o. Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat..Applicant
Age. 31 years, Occ. Tailor,
R/o. Chigatgaon, Tal. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.B. Kale, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.P. Sonpawale, APP for respondent/State.
Mr.K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J. DATED : 24.10.2016

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.The applicant/accused in Crime No.I-123 of 2015,
registered with Shivoor Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad,
for offences punishable under section 363, 376 of the
Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 (a), 4, 5(c) (t),
6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act (POCSO Act) 2012, by this application is seeking his
release on bail after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶12

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. I have
also heard learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel appearing
for the informant. They both argued that the crime in

¶13

( 2 ) cria2919.16

¶14

question is serious and if release on bail, the applicant
would tamper prosecution evidence. It is also argued
that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case.

¶15

3.Perused the charge-sheet. Considered the rival
submissions. According to the prosecution case, the
applicant/accused had kidnapped minor daughter of the
informant - Narayan, in the night intervening 22.09.2015
and 23.09.2015. According to the prosecution case, the
applicant then committed rape on her, when the couple
stayed at several places, after eloping. It is also
averred that even prior to eloping, the applicant had
committed rape on the minor female daughter of the
informant.

¶16

4.It is seen from the charge-sheet that on
18.11.2015, the minor female daughter of the informant
was traced out and her statement came to be recorded on
19.11.2015. It is seen that the minor female victim of
the crime in question was in love with present applicant,
who is distinctly related to her. The statement of the
minor female victim further revels that she insisted the
applicant to marry her, by eloping. Her statement
reflects that she had threatened the applicant that if he
does not come to take her with him, she will die. Then
this couple eloped and resided at various places, namely,

¶17

( 3 ) cria2919.16

¶18

Thane, Jalgaon, Shirdi, Aurangabad, Apegaon etc.

¶19

5.Perusal of the charge-sheet, as such, shows that
the applicant and the minor female victim were in love
with each other and they chose to live together without
consent of their parents. No violence is attributed to
the present applicant, nor he is reported to have any
criminal antecedents. There is nothing tangible on
record to show that, if release on bail, the applicant
would tamper the prosecution evidence. As such, the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, in view of
judgment of this Court dated 03.08.2015 in Sunil Madhav
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, decided at Principal
Seat. Therefore, the order :-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

i)The application is allowed.

¶22

ii)The Applicant/accused - Uday s/o.
Dnyaneshwar Ghaiwat in Crime No. I-123 of
2015, registered with Shivoor Police Station,
Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable u/s
363, 676 of the Indian Penal Code and under
sections 3(a), 4, 5(c)(t), 6 & 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
(POCSO Act) 2012, be released on bail on
executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- [Rupees
Thirty Thousand] and on furnishing surety in the
like amount.

¶23

( 4 ) cria2919.16

¶24

iii)As a condition of this Order, the
applicant shall not extend any threat,
inducement or promise to the persons
acquainted with the facts of the accusation
so as to dissuade them from disclosing the same
either to the police or the Court.

¶25

iv)The applicant shall not tamper the
evidence of the prosecution.

¶26

v)The applicant to co-operate the trial Court
in the expeditious disposal of trial against
him.

¶27

[A.M. BADAR,J.]

¶28

snk/2016/OCT16/ cria2919.16

Uday S/O Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday S/O Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi S/O Ramesh Hadse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin S/O Ramdas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanaji Chinndha Thombre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajan S/O Ashok Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

M a Shahed S/O M a Majid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttam S/O Maruti Bhandare Vs the State of Maharashtra