Allowed

Murlidhar Yadav Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Jan 2023APPLN/333/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for the applicant, noting the victim's contradictory statement and delayed recording under the POCSO Act as grounds for release, though conditions were imposed to prevent repetition of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with joint and several security of Rs.50,000/- and one surety, subject to appearance conditions and non-contact with the victim.

Murlidhar Yadav Pimpale Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2-bA-2071-2022.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 BAIL APPLICATION NO.2071 OF 2022

¶5

WITH APPLN/333/2023 IN BA/2071/2022

¶6

MAHESH SAMBHAJI BARDE
VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Deshmukh
Advocate for Assist to P.P. : Mr. D.R. Jayabhar

¶9

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶10

 DATED : JANUARY 23, 2023

¶11

PER COURT:-

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel assisting the learned APP.

¶13

2.The applicant is a maternal brother of the victim. Two
similar crimes are to his discredit. However, the statement of the
victim under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code is totally
against what the prosecution case is. She made no complaint against
the applicant except going with him voluntarily. The said statement is
recorded after about five months of the incident. The reason best
known to the investigation officer, why he/she did not follow the
mandate of law recording the statement of the victim immediately
under the POCSO Act.

¶14

2-bA-2071-2022.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

3.Be that as it may, though the applicant has no good past

¶17

but the Court has to examine the evidence and material on record.
The material contradictory statement of the victim is available on
record. She did not support the prosecution except going with the
applicant. It is a good ground for bail. However to prevent the
repetition, certain conditions may be imposed. Hence, the following
order :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶20

(ii)The applicant, Mahesh Sambhaji Barde, be released on bail on
executing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with
one solvent surety in the like amount in connection with Crime
No.477 of 2022, registered at Pathardi Police Station, District
Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376 (2)
(i) (j) (n), 366(A), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the
conditions that;

¶21

(a)The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 02.00 p.m. to
04.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

¶22

(b)The applicant shall not contact the victim and her parents
till conclusion of the trial.

¶23

2-bA-2071-2022.odt

¶24

(3)

¶25

(c)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶26

evidence.

¶27

(iii)Criminal Application No.333 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶28

 (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶29

Mujaheed//

Murlidhar Yadav Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Yadav Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Vishnu Shankar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dewanand Uttam Uchit and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ratnabai Samadhan Koli and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kannaiah @ Kanha Chandraiah Gonela Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jay Kanhaiyalal Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Babasaheb Dandait Vs the State of Maharashtra