Allowed

Ravi Manik Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Feb 2018BA/1570/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an accused facing charges under IPC and POCSO Act. The court granted bail noting that evidence against the applicant was limited to witness statements that did not identify him as a perpetrator of the threatened acts on the witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on executing Police Bond of Rs. 25,000/ with surety and conditions against tampering evidence.

Ravi Manik Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)BA-1570-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1570 OF 2017

¶5

Ravi Manik Pawar. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Mr. Ashish Satpute, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶9

DATED : 15^th FEBRUARY 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By virtue of order dated 6^th September, 2017, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: A.S. Gadkari,J) this application is being decided by this Court.

¶12

By this application, applicant/accused in Crime No. 210/2015 registered with Warje Malwadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 307, 109 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as well as under Sections 4, 8, 5 (i),(j),(m),(r) and 6 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter referred to as POCSO Act) is praying for releasing him on bail pre-

1/5

Sarnobat

(1)BA-1570-17

pendency of the trial.

¶17

Heard the learned advocate for the applicant/accused. He argued that evidence against the present applicant is only in the form of statements of Roshan Thakur and Sonu Thakur, which are disclosing post event conduct. Supplementary statement of both these witnesses do not show that they had seen the present applicant at the time of witnessing the post event conduct of the co-accused. The leaned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that the crime in question is serious.

¶18

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire charge-sheet produced on record by the learned advocate for the applicant and not disputed to be incomplete by the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The minor boy went missing from his house at Warje Malwadi area of Pune on 15^th July, 2015. His parents and relatives searched for him. Ultimately witnesses named Roshan Thakur and Sonu Thakur noticed the missing minor boy with an aged couple. Said couple handed over the victim to both these witnesses and informed them that they are not knowing whose boy he is.

2/5

Sarnobat

(1)BA-1570-17

Witnesses Roshan Thakur and Sonu Thakur then reached the victim boy to his parents who were searching him. At that time it was noticed that the victim boy was sexually assaulted. When witnesses Roshan Thakur and Sonu Thakur were returning after giving custody of the minor boy to his parents, they were accosted on the way by three young persons and those persons threatened both these witnesses not to disclose anything about the victim boy. This is the evidence against accused persons which is primarily relied by the prosecution.

¶24

Supplementary statement of Roshan Thakur and Sonu Thakur came to be recorded on 17^th July, 2005. Five accused persons were shown to both these witnesses. They identified four accused persons to be the same persons who accosted them after delivering custody of the child to his parents. Both these witnesses have not identified the present applicant as the person who after incident in question had threatened them.

¶25

Except this no other evidence against the present applicant in the crime in question is pointed out. Investigation of the crime in question is over and the charge-sheet also filed long

3/5

Sarnobat

(1)BA-1570-17

back. Considering this nature of evidence against the present applicant, his further pre-trial detention is not warranted. Therefore, the following order ;

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(I) The application is allowed. (II) The applicant/accused in Crime No.210/2015 registered with Warje Malwadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 377, 307, 109 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. as well as under Section 4, 8, 5 (i) (j),(m),(r) and 6 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act be released on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶32

(III) As a condition of this order, the applicant/accused should not commit any offence in future and he should co-operate the leaned Trial Court in expeditious

4/5

Sarnobat

(1)BA-1570-17

disposal of the trial in which the coaccused is in jail.

¶37

(IV) The applicant should not tamper prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶38

(V) The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶40

5/5

¶41

Sarnobat

Ravi Manik Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Manik Pawar 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

Union of India Vs Ramnath Vishnu Naik and Anr.

Sandeep Nagin Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Kumar Dasharath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sriroz Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rameshwar Inder Thakur and Anr.

Chandrakant Vishnu Lanjekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Raghunath Chalke Vs Prakash Baburao More and Anr.