Allowed

Pravin Sharad Parkhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018ABA/251/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court confirmed an interim relief on an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant faced charges under IPC and POCSO. The Court noted an affidavit withdrawing the complaint, reminding that POCSO is non-compoundable, and cautioned against false evidence under Section 195-A IPC. Conditions for bail were fixed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail upon arrest by furnishing PR bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

Pravin Sharad Parkhi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

29 aba 251.2018.doc

1/3

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2018

¶6

Pravin Sharad Parkhi .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Applicant. Mrs. Veera Shinde APP for the State.

¶8

Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J. Date : 11^th July, 2018

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶11

APP.

¶12

2 This is an application under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.608 of 2017, registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5(1) and (6) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶13

3 Even before going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant has brought to the notice of this Court the

¶14

Dusane

¶15

2/3 29 aba 251.2018.doc

¶16

affidavit filed by the complainant in Criminal Application No. 292 of 2018 seeking quashing of F.I.R. by consent. In fact, the allegations are under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is not compoundable offence. The statute contemplates that whenever a report is filed under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the Court is to presume that the accused is guilty. Despite that if the complainant volunteers to withdraw the complaint, she ought to have been apprised of Section 195-A of Indian Penal Code, which contemplates as follows :

¶17

195A : [ Threatening any person to give false evidence ].-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;

¶18

and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.]

¶19

Dusane 3/3

¶20

29 aba 251.2018.doc

¶21

A copy of the affidavit filed by the complainant dated 6^th March, 2018 is taken on record. In view of this, the interim relief is confirmed.

¶22

4 In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶23

( Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav , J)

Pravin Sharad Parkhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Sharad Parkhi 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

Sandipsingh Virendrasingh Rawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vivek Vijay Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashwini Ashok Bangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azim Salim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Israr Abdul Kalam Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Gurupaad Babannawar Vs the State of Maharashtra