Allowed

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Mar 2021BA/145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application of a female applicant arrested for offences under IPC, PITA, and POCSO involving alleged prostitution activities. The court found detention unnecessary and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on execution of P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in like amount; directed to attend trial and report to police station every three months.

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

48 BA 145-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2021

¶4

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Manish N. Jain i/b. S. M. Jain & Asso., for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 17th MARCH, 2021

¶9

PC :

¶10

. The applicant is arrested on 19th July 2019 in
C.R.No.591/2019 registered with Malvani Police Station, Mumbai for
offences under Sections 366(a), 376(j), 370, 370(a), 465, 468, 471
and 34 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of
Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (in short ‘PITA’) read with Sections 4,
6, 8 and 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (in short ‘POCSO’).

¶11

Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. Aher Date: Aher 2021.03.19 14:40:58 +0530

¶12

2. On 19th July 2019, the Social Service Branch received
information about prostitution activities. Raid was conducted with
the help of bogus customer. The applicant and the victim were found

Manjusha

1 of 3

48 BA 145-2021.doc

at the place of raid. F.I.R. was registered on 31st August 2019.
Statement of the victim was recorded. On completing investigation,
chargesheet is filed.

¶17

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted, that on the day
of raid, the victim was major. There are contradictions in statement
under Sections 161 and 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. The
ossification test of victim showed that age of victim is about 18 to 19
years. The applicant is lady having three minor children. The victim
in her statement had stated that the original Aadhar Card is at her
residence along with Birth Certificate. The provisions of PITA Act can
not be attracted against the applicant. The applicant has not
committed any offence under the provision of POSCO Act.

¶18

4. Learned APP submitted that the victim was minor at the initial
stage. Role has been attributed to the applicant in her statement
under Sections 161 and 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶19

5. The applicant is in custody for a period about one year and ten months. She is a lady. On the day of raid, victim was major. The ossification test showed that she was around 18 to 19 years.

¶20

6. Considering the factual aspects, further detention of the

Manjusha

2 of 3

48 BA 145-2021.doc

applicant is not necessary.

¶25

7. Hence, the following order.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i) Bail Application No.145 of 2021, is allowed.

¶28

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in C.R.No.591/2019 registered with Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall report the concerned Police Station once in three months on 1^st Saturday of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. until further order;

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall attend the trial Court on the date of the hearing unless exempted by the Court;

¶31

(v) The applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight weeks;

¶32

(vi) Bail Application No.145 of 2021 stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶34

Manjusha

¶35

3 of 3

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde 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

Ghanshyam Dilip Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sumit Suresh Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Salim Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Ramesh Zende Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Devendra Upadhayay Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash @ Sanny Haribhau Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.