Dismissed

Prashant Balu Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Apr 2018BA/363/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court of Bombay rejected the bail plea of an applicant charged with offences including rape and abduction under the IPC and POCSO against a 17-year-old survivor. The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, was denied bail based on prima facie material, and the trial was expedited.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected. Trial expedited to be concluded within 12 months.

Prashant Balu Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

27-ba.363.2018.doc

1/2

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.363 OF 2018

¶6

Prashant Balu Bhosale ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr.Harshad Sathe, for the Applicant. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 16^th APRIL, 2018

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on

¶12

bail in connection with C.R.No.267 of 2016 registered with the Vashi

¶13

Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under

¶14

Sections 363, 376(D), 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,.

¶15

Perused the charge-sheet. The survivor/prosecutrix, is aged 17

¶16

years. She has alleged that the applicant alongwith two others took advantage of her and had physical relations with her, without her consent.

¶17

27-ba.363.2018.doc

¶18

2/2

¶19

The statement of the survivor dated 9^th March, 2017, is consistent with her

¶20

164 statement as well as the medical history given by the survivor to the Doctor on 19^th April, 2017. The applicant was a minor, at the time of the alleged incident.

¶21

Considering the prima facie material as against the applicant, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected and

¶23

disposed of as such. However, the trial of the applicant is expedited. The learned Judge to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 12 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie for deciding the aforesaid application, and the learned Judge shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶25

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Prashant Balu Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Balu Bhosale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vinod Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayprakash Jabbar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Radhika @ Muskan Vinod Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Singh Nanaksingh Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashmir Singh Satnam Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramcandra Balkrushna Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra