Allowed

Rahul Sanjay Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Dec 2022BA/1873/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. Considering the applicant's incarceration for over nine months despite a delayed FIR, bail was granted on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and monthly police attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant released on P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of like amount; obligation to attend police station once a month.

Rahul Sanjay Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

39-ba-1873-22.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESHSADANAND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2023.01.11 16:04:30 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1873 OF 2022 +0500

¶3

Rahul S. Jadhav V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶5

…Applicant

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Sachin R. Pawar for the Applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. Ms Trupti Khamkar, Appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 20.12.2022.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for bail.

¶11

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No. 132 of 2022 registered at Baramati Police Station, Pune Rural for the ofences punishable under Sections 376, 376-D, 377, 386, 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(E), 67, 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent – State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶13

Even though according to the prosecutrix, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse for the frst time in November 2021 and lastly on 3 January 2022, she lodged the report only on 11 March 2022. According to the prosecutrix herself, she is 26 years

1/2

Dinesh S. Sherla

39-ba-1873-22.doc

old. Considering these facts and circumstances and as the applicant is in jail for more than 9 months, I am inclined to release him on bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

A] Bail Application is allowed.

¶20

B] The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.132 of 2022 registered at Baramati Police Station, Pune Rural for the ofences punishable under Sections 376, 376-D, 377, 386, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 66(E), 67, 67 (A) of the IT Act on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶21

C] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month, i.e., on frst Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial.

¶22

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶23

2/2

¶24

Dinesh S. Sherla

Rahul Sanjay Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sanjay Jadhav v. 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

Jagdish S/O Budharam Vs State of Maharashtra

Gorakh Namdeo Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Aba Pandurang Sarode Vs State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Lahu Thorat and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Dheeraj Chandrakant Shitole Vs State of Maharashtra

Gauri Rajendra Mhaske Vs State of Maharashtra