Allowed

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2023BA/2480/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail in a child sexual assault case. The judgment observed that medical reports did not corroborate allegations of sexual assault. Considering the applicant's detention over 18 months and age, the court granted bail on personal bond with reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the applicant on bail on personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to reporting and non-interference conditions.

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

14-BA-2480-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2480 OF 2022

¶5

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Anr.…Respondents

¶9

Ms. Vilasini Balsubramanium i/b. J.D.Mane, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 7 OCTOBER, 2023

¶13

P. C:-

¶14

1.By this Application, Applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.
289 of 2022 registered with Mohol Police Station, Solapur for the

¶15

offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 354 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and under Sections 4, 6, 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short
“POCSO Act”).

¶16

2.It is the prosecutions’ case that on 06.04.2022 first
informant lodged missing complaint of her daughter making
allegations against the Applicant. On 08.04.2022 in investigation

¶17

police arrested Applicant and victim girl. On 08.04.2022, statement

¶18

S.S.Kilaje page 1 of 4

¶19

14-BA-2480-2022.doc

¶20

of victim girl was recorded. She has stated in her statement that on
08.04.2022 at about 4.30 p.m., Applicant made phone call on
mobile of her mother and made enquiry about the victim. After
some time, Applicant came to victim’s house and stated her that he
is going to marry with her and her marriage is fixed with him. On
that pretext he sexually assaulted her. On the same day at about
5.45 p.m., Applicant again phoned victim and asked her to come at
particular place. Thereafter, he took the victim and ran away.
Thereafter, he took the victim to Kdgaon, at his friends house and
thereafter he left the victim at his house. It is alleged that Applicant
sexually assaulted the victim on two occasions by giving false
promise of marriage.

¶21

3.It is contention of learned counsel for Applicant that victim
herself had gone with the Applicant. The marriage was fixed
between the victim and Applicant. In the statement before the
Medical Officer, victim has denied that sexual assault was done on
her. Medial report does not corroborate the allegations of sexual
assault on victim. Applicant is behind the bar ore than 18 months.
He is 22 years old. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶22

4.Learned APP submitted that at the time of incident victim

¶23

was 14 years old. Applicant was aware about it. He sexual
assaulted her on two occasions by giving false promise of marriage.

¶24

S.S.Kilaje page 2 of 4

¶25

14-BA-2480-2022.doc

¶26

Victim had stated about incident before the police. There is prima
facie case against the Applicant.

¶27

5.Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 reiterates the
submission of learned APP.

¶28

6.I have heard all learned counsels. Perused the FIR and
charge-sheet. It is alleged that, Applicant had sexually assaulted to
the victim on two occasions. At the time of medical examination,
the victim has given statement that she had not assaulted sexually.
The medial papers brought on record does not show victim girl was
sexually assaulted. It is not corroborating the version of sexual
assault by the Applicant. Applicant is behind the bar more than 18
months. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
Applicant is 22 years old. Considering above facts his further
detention is not required.

¶29

7.In view of the above, I pass following Order :

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i)Applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 289 of 2022
registered with Mohol Police Station, Solapur, on
executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with
one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶32

(ii) Applicant shall attend the concerned police station
once in a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00

¶33

S.S.Kilaje page 3 of 4

¶34

14-BA-2480-2022.doc

¶35

a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till framing of charge.

¶36

(iii) Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer.

¶37

(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶38

8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

¶39

9. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶40

10. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶41

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISHKILAJE Date:2023.10.1219:02:42+0530

¶42

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶43

S.S.Kilaje page 4 of 4

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shabbirali Akbarali Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Vasant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lahu Bansi Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Nagnath Saravade Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vandana Chandrashekhar Tambat Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.

Sunil Mahadev Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra