Disposed

Nilesh Arun Bangar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Feb 2017BA/341/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected the bail application of Nilesh Arun Bangar, prosecuted under sections 366A IPC and sections 4, 8, 12 POCSO Act, for instigating his cousin to run away with the principal accused, citing serious nature of offences and lack of innocence, granting liberty to move afresh after 9 months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move bail application afresh after 9 months granted; bail application rejected.

Nilesh Arun Bangar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

909.BA341_2017.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION No. 341 OF 2017

¶5

Nilesh Arun Bangar Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 9^th February, 2017.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This Application is moved for bail. The applicant/accused is arrested on 15^th November, 2016 in C.R. No. 120 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366A, 376 of Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complaint is registered at the instance of prosecutrix, who was 15 years old and cousin of applicant/accused.

¶13

It is the case of the prosecutrix that in the year 2015 she was in love with Sunil Chavan, principal accused. Sunil was in the employment of her uncle, who is father of applicant/accused. She ran away with Sunil on 8^th August, 2015, as she was instigated by the applicant/accused. She stayed with Sunil Chavan nearly for two months in Maharashtra and Karnataka States. Both of them had sexual intercourse and thereafter on

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

909.BA341_2017.doc

¶16

7^th October, 2015 she was brought back to her house at Bangarwadi, Taluka Junnar, District Pune and thereafter her statement was recorded.

¶17

The learned counsel submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The learned counsel submitted that applicant/accused is not the principal accused who ran away with the prosecutrix but he was in the company of principal accused Sunil Chavan when Sunil and prosecutrix fled away. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant/accused does not have criminal antecedents and he is to be released on bail, as he is in prison since November, 2016.

¶18

Learned APP opposed this Bail Application. She submitted that applicant/accused has instigated the prosecutrix to run away with Sunil Chavan. She submitted that the applicant/accused has provided motorcycle and gave Rs.15,000/- to the principal accused to run away with the prosecutrix. She submitted that the applicant/accused and principal accused were in contact, however, the applicant/accused either did not call her back or he did not disclose her whereabouts to her parents. Learned APP has submitted that this Bail Application is to be rejected.

¶19

Perused the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has stated

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

909.BA341_2017.doc

¶22

against the applicant/accused. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/accused and submissions of learned APP. The applicant/accused is prosecuted under section 366A of Indian Penal Code. In view of these submissions, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the applicant/accused to move Bail Application afresh after 9 months. Bail Application is rejected.

¶23

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶24

3 / 3

Nilesh Arun Bangar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Arun Bangar 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

Shailesh @ Dadaso Kisan Mane Vs State of Maharashtra

Amit Balbhim Bhole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Pandit Pagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Primary Teachers Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babulal Sahebrao Shinde Vs Prasad @ Pappu Shamrao Jagtap

Maruti Ningappa Pujari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.