Allowed

Ankush Maroti Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC28 Mar 2023BA/267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in a POCSO case arising from a runaway marriage between minors where parents opposed the union. Court held unjust to keep applicant in custody given victim's conduct and lack of force allegation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount subject to conditions.

Ankush Maroti Shelke Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

928-BA-267-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2023

¶5

ANKUSH MAROTI SHELKE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. M. Shinde APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. K. S. Patil Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. P.S. Koshti

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

¶10

DATE : 28.03.2023

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim.

¶13

It is a case of love afair between two youngsters of diferent castes. The age of the victim was about 15 years at the time of the alleged incident. Her statement reveals that their parents were opposing their marriage as they belong to diferent castes. Hence, they decided to fee away. She stayed with the applicant for about one month. She never tried to fee away nor resisted the applicant for

¶14

¶15

928-BA-267-2023.odt

¶16

doing sex with her. However, the parents lodged the report. Hence, they were apprehended. Thereafter, she made allegations against the applicant that he did sex with her. But nowhere she stated that it was a forcible sex. The over all facts of the case reveals that due to oppose from the family of both they fed away and started residing as husband and wife. The conduct of the victim reveals that she was well aware of the consequences of the act she was doing. Her supplementary statement appears exaggerated. The investigation has been completed. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be unjust to keep the applicant behind bar. Hence, the order

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶19

(ii) Applicant Ankush Maroti Shelke be released on bail on furnishing P. B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount, in Crime No 182/2022 registered with Police Station Kurunda, Dist. Hingoli for the ofences punishable under Sections 376(2) (N), 363, 366(A), 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 8, 12, 17 of

¶20

¶21

928-BA-267-2023.odt

¶22

Protection of Children From Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 on the following conditions :-

¶23

(a) The applicant shall not contact the victim or any of the witnesses till conclusion of the trial.

¶24

(b) The applicant shall stay away for three months

¶25

from village Shiradshahapur Taluka Aundha Nagnath, District Hingoli, from the date of his release.

¶26

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶27

ysk

Ankush Maroti Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Maroti Shelke 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

Vishal @ Kali Dilip Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Govindrao Wadhave Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanveer Mohammad Hanif Rangrej Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Ashok Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramesh Namdeo Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Roshan Pundlik Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra