Allowed

Umesh Jalindar Ghadage v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Feb 2023BA/4450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences under IPC 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and POCSO sections, the High Court released the accused on bail. The Court noted that while the victim's consent was immaterial due to her age, the relationship appeared consensual in nature. Considering the long custody period, the completion of investigation, and lack of criminal antecedents, the Court allowed bail with a cash bond and directed reporting to the Investigating Officer and no-contact with the victim.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on a PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions including no contact with the victim.

Umesh Jalindar Ghadage Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 26. BA 4450-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANE RANE Date: 2023.02.16 18:54:34 +0530

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.4450/2021

¶5

UMESH JALINDAR GHADAGE ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS

¶6

Adv. Vilasini Balasubramanian a/w. Adv. Jaydeep Mane for the applicant.

¶7

Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State.

¶8

Adv. Sushan Mhatre for the complainant.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2023.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

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

¶13

2. This is an application for bail in respect of First Information Report (FIR) No.473/2021 registered with the Kurduwadi Police Station, Solapur Rural, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “the IPC”, for short) read with Sections 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter ‘POCSO Act’ for short).

¶14

3. The victim at the relevant time was 16 years of age.

¶15

1/4

¶16

Diksha Rane 26. BA 4450-2021.doc

¶17

The applicant was 22 years of age. The applicant was married and has two children. In the statement of the victim recorded on September 29, 2021 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), she has stated that she was aware that the applicant is married. The applicant is known to the victim. She further stated that the applicant’s wife was not residing with him and therefore, the applicant had come to her parents and proposed marriage with the victim. Her parents did not agree. It is then stated that the applicant and the victim were in regular touch with each other and for a period from September 19, 2021 to September 28, 2021, the applicant, the victim and the children of the applicant stayed together at Pune in a flat which the applicant hired on rent. A missing complaint was lodged by the father of the victim. The applicant and the victim themselves went to the police station on September 28, 2021, on which date the applicant was surrendered.

¶18

4. In the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on September 29, 2021, the victim stated that applicant did not have any physical relations with her during

¶19

2/4

¶20

Diksha Rane 26. BA 4450-2021.doc

¶21

this period. It is in the supplementary statement recorded on October 1, 2021 that the victim narrated about the physical relations that the applicant had against her wish.

¶22

5. From the reading of the statement, it is obvious that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature. The applicant at the relevant time was 16 years and 3 months old. Looking at the age of the victim, her consent may not be material. Nonetheless, taking an over all view of the matter, since the applicant is in custody from September 28, 2021, for a period of one year and four months, with the possibility of the trial concluding any time soon appearing to be remote, the applicant can be released on bail. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet has been filed. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. Hence the following order.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(a) The application is allowed.

¶25

(b) The applicant in connection with FIR No.473/2021 registered with the Kurduwadi Police Station, Solapur Rural, shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶26

3/4

¶27

Diksha Rane 26. BA 4450-2021.doc

¶28

¶29

(d) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station as and when called.

¶30

(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶31

(f) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶32

(g) The applicant shall not enter the village where the victim is residing, neither he shall establish any contact with the victim.

¶33

6. The application is disposed of.

¶34

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶35

4/4

Umesh Jalindar Ghadage v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Jalindar Ghadage 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

Mukhtar Sheru Hussain Vs State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Appa Shewale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad Haridas Dhekale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Tanaji Raut and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Jalindar Ghadage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parvez Zubair Vaid Vs the State of Maharashtra