Allowed

Chandan Pyarelal Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Oct 2021BA/113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a POCSO case. The court held that the medical examination showed no injuries and the hymen was intact, contradicting the claim of aggravated sexual assault. Consequently, the required ingredients for bail were met.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in C.R. No.329 of 2019 upon executing a bond of Rs.15,000/- with sureties.

Chandan Pyarelal Gautam Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

19 ba113-21 spktomin.odt

¶2

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶3

Digitally signedby BHARATDASHARATHPANDIT Date:2021.11.0112:04:32 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2021

¶6

Chandan Pyarelal Gautam ….. Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶9

Ms.Saima Ansari for the Applicant

¶10

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, A.P.P. for the State

¶11

Mr.Chougule, I.O.S.H., A.P.I. Kasarwadavali Police Station

¶12

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2021

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard.

¶16

On 15.12.2019, the Applicant came to be arrested for an ofence punishable under section 376 (AB), section 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 3, 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act in C.R. No.329/2019.

¶17

After custodial interrogation, the Applicant was charge-sheeted. It is the case of the prosecution against the Applicant that the Applicant induced the minor girl and daughter of the complainant under the promise of chocolate and cash and had committed aggravated Mohite 1/3

¶18

19 ba113-21 spktomin.odt

¶19

sexual assualt.

¶20

The submissions of learned Counsel for the Applicant are, the case by the victim is improved in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, which is also not supported by medical evidence. It is further claimed that ofence, at the most, can be made punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶21

5] While countering the same, learned APP submits that this Court need not to appreciate variance in statement under Sections 164 and 161 of the victim at this stage. There is sufcient material on record to infer prima facie involvement. As such, rejection of the application is prayed.

¶22

6. Considered submissions.

¶23

Perusal of the medical examination papers of the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution of aggravated sexual assualt, as no injuries are noticed on the private part of the victim. Hymon Porinoum of the victim was found to be intact. Statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is at variance. The said theory is not supported by medical papers. In that view of the matter, case for grant of bail is made out.

¶24

Applicant shall be released on bail in C.R. No.329

¶25

Mohite

¶26

2/3

¶27

19 ba113-21 spktomin.odt

¶28

of 2019 registered with Kasarwadavali Police Station, Thane upon executing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in like amount.

¶29

Applicant shall neither infuence the prosecution witness in any manner nor tamper with the evidence.

¶30

Applicant shall not directly or indirectly, contact the victim or her family members.

¶31

Applicant shall stay away from the jurisdiction of the police station till conclusion of the trial.

¶32

The Applicant shall furnish the particulars of his place of residence and contact details to the Investigating Ofcer of the Police Station concerned within seven days from today.

¶33

Surety to be local as Applicant is permanent resident of U.P.

¶34

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶35

Corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 29.10.2021.

¶36

Mohite

¶37

3/3

Chandan Pyarelal Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Pyarelal Gautam 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

Sanjay Vinayak Medhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishana Shivkumar Panday Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Dattu Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Baburao Suryavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Firoz Bilal Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nimesh Amarbhai Vachheta Vs the State of Maharashtra