Allowed

Ganesh Gorakh Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jan 2017APPA/72/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail. The applicant, convicted of rape and POCSO offences involving a 17-year-old girl with whom he had a consensual relationship, argued no violence was used. Relying on a prior precedent regarding love-affairs between minors, the court granted bail upon executing a bond with surety and imposed a conditi

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; accused to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with surety in like amount; condition imposed not to contact prosecutrix or relatives.

Ganesh Gorakh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

15-APPA-72-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2017

¶5

GANESH GORAKH JADHAV )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.V.B.Shivarkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 23^rd JANUARY 2017.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 The applicant / accused by this application is seeking

¶13

his release on bail by suspending the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial court.

¶14

avk 1/4

¶15

15-APPA-72-2017.doc

¶16

2 Heard both sides. The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is proved and the prosecutrix was a minor girl.

¶17

3 The applicant / accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Apart from this, he is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and similar sentence is imposed upon him on that count.

¶18

4 It is not disputed by the learned APP that the prosecutrix was 17 years of age at the time of commission of alleged offence. Evidence of the prosecutrix shows that she eloped with the applicant / accused in the midnight of 9^th March 2015 and by joining his company, she had stayed with the

¶19

avk 2/4

¶20

15-APPA-72-2017.doc

¶21

applicant / accused up to 3^rd April 2015. Though the prosecutrix has denied the fact that she was having love affair with the applicant / accused, her evidence indicates that she was having love affairs with the applicant / accused and therefore, she has stayed with him for a period of about one month by accompanying him in the midnight.

¶22

5 It is seen that the applicant / accused was on bail throughout the trial and he has not misused his liberty. In the matter of Sunil Mahadev Patil

¶23

vs. The State of Maharashtra (

¶24

Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015

¶25

) (decided on 3^rd August 2015) in paragraph 12, this court has given the relevant aspect which needs to be considered at the time of releasing the accused on bail, when the accused and the minor girl are in love with each other and choose to live together without consent of their parents. The applicant / accused is satisfying all those considerations enlisted in paragraph 12. It is not seen that the applicant / accused was violent and had taken

¶26

avk 3/4

¶27

15-APPA-72-2017.doc

¶28

the prosecutrix by force.

¶29

6 The appeal will take its own time for disposal and considering the fact that the applicant / accused was on bail during the trial, he deserves liberty and therefore, the order :

¶30

i) The application is allowed.

¶31

ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant / accused is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in like amount.

¶32

iii)As a condition of the order, the applicant / accused should not contact the prosecutrix or her relatives in any manner.

¶33

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶34

avk 4/4

Ganesh Gorakh Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Gorakh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Harish Malve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ujwala Dhananjay Pokale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Iqlak Mohamad Iqbal Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Savta Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Eknath Nerkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.