Allowed

Shyam Ramesh Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Mar 2019BA/435/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The High Court granted bail to the applicant in connection with an FIR for offences under Section 363 of IPC and various sections of the POCSO Act, considering his custody period of 14 months and conditions of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties and complying with reporting and other conditions.

Shyam Ramesh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

osk

¶2

931-ba-435-2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2019

¶5

Shyam Ramesh Patil V/s.	…	Applicant
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶6

Mr.Vikram R. Sutaria for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent.

¶8

Mr.Pankaj Bhople, PSI, Parksite Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶10

DATE : 1^st MARCH, 2019.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1] This is an application for bail in connection with C.R. No.

¶13

426 of 2017 registered with Parksite Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376, 212 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16(3) of the POCSO Act.

¶14

2] The FIR was lodged by the mother of victim on 12^th

¶15

November, 2017, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim who is aged about 17 years was chased and her statement was

¶16

1/3

¶17

osk 931-ba-435-2019.odt

¶18

recorded on 19^th December, 2017. In her statement, the victim had stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the Applicant and they have stayed together. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said statement is also in consonance with her version reflected with the statement recorded by the police. She had stated that she went with the Applicant and stayed with him till 30^th November, 2017 till she traced. It appears that prior to registration of this FIR, similar complaint was lodged against the Applicant wherein the Applicant and the victim had left the house together and the complaint was lodged for similar offence. The Applicant was granted bail in the said case and after his release on bail, the Applicant had again eloped with the victim. The Applicant is in custody for a period of 14 months after his arrest in the present case. Learned APP pointed out the nature of evidence collected during the course of investigation and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶19

3] In the light of the observations made here-in-above and considering the fact that the Applicant is in custody for a period of about 14 months, bail can be granted to the Applicant on certain conditions.

¶20

2/3

¶21

osk 931-ba-435-2019.odt

¶22

4] Hence, following order.

¶23

:: ORDER ::

¶24

(i) Bail Application No. 435 of 2019 is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

(ii) The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 426 of 2017 registered with Parksite Police Station on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶26

(iii) The Applicant shall report concern police station once in a month on first Saturday of the month between 11 am to 1 pm till further order.

¶27

(iv) The Applicant shall not approach the complainant and the victim in any manner. He shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(v) The Applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly on the date of hearing of the case, unless exempted by the trial Court for some reason.

¶29

(vi) In the event, the Applicant commits breach of condition of any of the bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to prefer an application for cancellation of bail.

¶30

[PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

¶31

3/3

Shyam Ramesh Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Ramesh Patil 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

Yogesh Suresh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Raju Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gautam S/O. Sahebrao Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harshkumar Jatinkumar Trivedi @ Dog Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Jaywant Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manimegala Anbalagan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.