Allowed

Jayram Ramkrishna Alva v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Mar 2021BA/490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction considered a bail application under the Indian Penal Code, POCSO Act, and PITA Act. The applicant alleged victim age discrepancies. The Court allowed bail, directing release on a bond with sureties and stipulating monthly reporting requirements.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon execution of a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/ with local sureties and compliance with reporting and non-tampering conditions.

Jayram Ramkrishna Alva Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 of 4 22.BA.490.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.490 OF 2020

¶4

Jairam Ramkrishna Alwa

¶5

versus
The State of Maharashtra

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Respondent

¶8

Mr.Satish B. Patil for applicant.
Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP, for State.
PSI Chavanke, AHTC Crime Branch, Thane.

¶9

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶10

DATE : 19th March 2021

¶11

PC :

¶12

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.2211:14:08 +0530

¶13

1.This is an application for bail in CR No.I-269 of 2018
registered with Manpada Police Station, Dombivali for the offences
under Sections 370(2)(3), 366(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,
under Sections 4,8,12 of POCSO Act and under Sections 4,5,6 of
PITA Act.

¶14

2.On 17th May 2018 establishment of M/s.Pallavi Lodging and
Boarding was raided by the Police and rescued three victims, who
were allegedly forced into the prostitution. The applicant was
Manager of the said establishment and hence the aforesaid crime is
registered.

¶15

3.In all there are four accused in the crime. Two accused
persons, who were working as waiter and agent, were released on
bail by learned Sessions Judge. Applicant is in custody. The present

¶16

2 of 4 22.BA.490.2020.doc

¶17

applicant was allegedly managing the establishment and
apprehended on 17th May 2018.

¶18

4.The learned counsel for applicant submits that the
investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed. He submits
that age of all the three victims was more than 18 years as on the
date of offence. He relied on the statement of one victim, which
shows that on 18th May 2918 she was 23 years old. The counsel
submits that Investigating Officer referred this victim to the
radiological test whereupon the doctor opined her age was between
17 to 18 years. The learned counsel for applicant has taken me
through the statement of victim. It shows that victim is a married
woman and was convicted having found Bangladesh national. The
submission is that as on 18th May 2018 the victim was major and
therefore the facts of the case do not admit the application of
provisions of Sections 366A, 372 of Indian Penal Code and the
provisions of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for applicant further
submits that the offence u/s 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 is punishable for a term not less than one year and not more
than 3 years.

¶19

5.In view of the evidence on record and the nature of accusation,
prima facie, it appears that the prosecution could not ascertain the
definite age of one of the victim. In fact victim’s statement recorded,
contradicts opinion of doctor. Admittedly the other two victims who
were rescued were above 18 years. The applicant is in custody since
17th May 2018. Even though the investigation is over and the charge
sheet is filed, the trial is not likely to commence and concluded
within reasonable period.

¶20

3 of 4 22.BA.490.2020.doc

¶21

6.The co-accused Shishupal @ Pritam Behara has been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 22nd November 2019. Learned
APP, however, submits that the said accused has no antecedents.
Present applicant is involved in similar case in past. Learned APP
also relied upon statement of victim who is allegedly minor and
wherein she has stated that she was forced by accused to indulge in
prostitution. However, similar allegation was also attributed to the
co-accused Pritam. It is also pertinent to note that it is debatable
whether victim is minor. In statement she has given her age as 23
years. In the statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C she has stated her age as 20
years and in the radiological test conducted, it is opined that her
approximate age is between 17 to 18 years. The applicant is in
custody for about two and half years. Considering the circumstances,
bail can be granted to the applicant. Hence, I pass following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i)Bail Application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii)The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection
with CR No.I-269 of 2018 registered with Manpada Police Station, on
his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more
local sureties in the like amount;

¶24

(iii)The applicant shall report Manpada Police Station once in a
month on every first Saturday between 11 am and 1 pm for first six
months, and thereafter once in three months on every first Saturday
between 11 am and 1 pm till further orders;

¶25

(iv)The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶26

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of

¶27

4 of 4 22.BA.490.2020.doc

¶28

this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a
digitally signed copy of this order.

¶29

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶30

MST

Jayram Ramkrishna Alva v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayram Ramkrishna Alva 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

Dhwanish S/O Arvindbhai Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hussein Muzafar Rajani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Chandrayya Dasari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abrar Ahmed Allawaris Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangilal B. Prajapati Vs the State of Maharashtra