Dismissed

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jan 2017BA/160/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected bail application of Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave charged under IPC and POCSO Act. Court noted accused committed similar kidnapping offence while on previous bail and expressed fear of repetition given his lack of employment and tendency to roam.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial expedited; State directed to arrange separation from hardened criminals and psychiatric counseling for accused.

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave Vs the State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

11-BA-160-17.odt

¶2

1 / 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2017

¶5

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶9

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.N.S. Jain, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 27^th JANUARY, 2017.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. This application is moved for bail by the

¶13

applicant/accused. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366(A), 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 r/w 4, 5 (L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in C.R.No.118/17 of Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune.

¶14

The mother of the prosecutrix is the complainant. She

¶15

gave information to the police on 09/05/2016 that her daughter

¶16

Nesarikar

¶17

2 / 5 11-BA-160-17.odt

¶18

was missing from 08/05/2016. It is the case of complainant that earlier also in the month of April 2016 the prosecutrix was missing for 7 days. She was taken by applicant/accused to the house his maternal aunt. An offence for kidnapping was registered against the applicant/accused.

¶19

Therefore the police tried to search the girl and she was found at the flat at Balaji Nagar Pune alongwith the accused. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant/accused took away the girl from the custody of her parents on 08/05/2016 to Shirdi. They stayed in one lodge till 24/05/2016 and at that time the applicant/accused had sexual intercourse with the girl. Thereafter, they went to Pune and resided in the flat belonging to the sister of the applicant/accused and there also he had sexual intercourse with her. He was arrested on 26/05/2016. Hence this bail application.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent. The girl though was minor, she was more than 16 years of age and thus

¶21

Nesarikar

¶22

3 / 5 11-BA-160-17.odt

¶23

at the age of understanding. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused relied on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 25/05/2016, wherein she has stated that she loves applicant/accused and she eloped with him because her grandmother and parents wanted to fix her marriage with some other person. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused further submitted that the applicant/accused does not have criminal record. This offence has occurred out of love and he is only 19 years old.

¶24

The learned prosecutor opposed the application. She has pointed out that the date of birth of the prosectrix is 02/11/2000. That means at the time of incident, in the month of May, she was 15 years and 7 months. She submitted that this is the second offence committed by the applicant/accused when he was given bail earlier. The learned prosecutor also relied on the statement of the father of the applicant/accused, wherein it is mentioned that the applicant/accused is not doing anything and only roaming. Hence bail not to be granted.

¶25

Nesarikar

¶26

4 / 5 11-BA-160-17.odt

¶27

Perused the FIR, perused the statement of the girl and

¶28

the other documents placed before me. The girl is minor. In the month of May 2016 she was 15 years and 7 months old. It appears that she was in love with the applicant/accused when she eloped with him. The aggregating factor in the present matter is the earlier case of kidnapping on 08/04/2016 by the applicant/accused. He had taken away the prosecutrix and had kept her in the house of her maternal aunt for 7 days. Thereafter on 15/03/2016 he was arrested and released on same day as the offence u/s 363 is bailable. It is accepted that once the offence is committed by the applicant/accused, he should not have repeated the same offence when he is on bail. However, the applicant/accused though is 19 years old, again he took away the girl within a period of 20-25 days thereafter to Shirdi. He stayed with her nearly for about 15 days at Shirdi. He had established sexual relations with her. Then brought her to Balaji Nagar in a flat of his sister, kept her there, again had sexual relations with her and thereafter he was arrested.

¶29

Nesarikar

¶30

5 / 5 11-BA-160-17.odt

¶31

Considering the age of the applicant/accused and considering that the offence is committed out of love, this application would have been considered in favour of the accused. However, it is the second offence committed when he was on bail and I am not satisfied that if the applicant/accused is released on bail at this stage, when the girl is only 16 years and 3 months, who is taking education in the college, will not again take her away. There is a possibility of the repetition of the similar offence. Further, I rely on the statement of the father of the applicant/accused, wherein he has stated that the applicant/accused is doing nothing, but only roams around.

¶32

Under such circumstances, the application for bail is rejected. The applicant/accused may apply for bail after 30/11/2016, if trial is not commenced. Trial Court to expedite the trial.

¶33

Considering the age of the applicant accused and the nature of the offence, State is directed to take reformative measures immediately as follows;

¶34

(a) The applicant/accused should be kept away from hard-core or habitual offenders.

¶35

(b) I.G. of the Prisons is directed to make an arrangement of psychiatrist for the counseling of the applicant/accused, so that he will understand his responsibility.

¶36

The application stands disposed of on above terms.

¶37

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶38

Nesarikar

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Indrajeet Aglave 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

Vijay Somdat Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vidya Rajesh Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Damodar Jangam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Bapu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Vishwanath Jamdade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Parshuram Baburao Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra