Allowed

Rohan Ashok Ovhal v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Sept 2023BA/512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a criminal case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The court observed that the applicant was not mentioned in the initial FIR, the supplementary statement was recorded with a five-day delay without a specific date of assault, and the applicant has been in custody for over two years. The court held further detention is unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount, attending police station monthly, and not tampering with evidence.

Rohan Ashok Ovhal Vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

5-BA-512-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 512 OF 2022

¶5

Rohan Ashok Ovhal ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, APP, for the Respondent Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal appointed for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUM SHANKARSADHUDUMDate:2023.09.16 16:00:28 +0530

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 13^th SEPTEMBER 2023.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By this application, applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.83 of 2021 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376DA, 307, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and under Sections 4, 5(g), 6 and Section 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO”) and Sections 3(25), (27) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(c) and section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act 1951.

¶12

It is prosecution’s case that, initially on the complaint of

1/4

5-BA-512-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

victim dated 28^th March, 2021 FIR was lodged against the coaccused stating that, the victim was sexually assaulted by the coaccused and one co-accused had fired bullet from his pistol at victim to kill her. When the said incident had happened at that time applicant was present. Thereafter, supplementary statement of victim was recorded on 2^nd April, 2021 and in the supplementary statement victim had stated that applicant had sexually assaulted her. On that basis applicant’s name was added in the present crime.

¶17

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that, no role was attributed to the applicant in the FIR. There were allegations against the co-accused. The supplementary statement of victim was recorded after five days of the complaint and in the said supplementary statement allegations against the applicant are made that, he had sexually assaulted the victim. Learned counsel further submitted that, applicant has been falsely implicated in this Case. Applicant is behind bar for more than two years. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶18

Learned APP submitted that, when the incident had occurred at that time applicant was present and co-accused are the

2/4

5-BA-512-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

friends of the applicant. In supplementary statement victim has specifically stated that applicant had sexually assaulted her. There is prim facie case against the applicant. If applicant is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶23

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused FIR and charge-sheet.

¶24

Admittedly, in FIR no role attributed to the applicant, in complaint it is mentioned that, after incident of fire at victim by coaccused, applicant had consoled the victim. Thereafter, in supplementary statement, allegations made against the applicant that, he had sexually assaulted the victim. No date and month of sexual assault is mentioned. There is five days delay in recording the supplementary statement while lodging complaint, victim has referred about the applicant but she has not stated anything against him. Applicant is behind bar for more than two years. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶25

Considering the above facts, further detention of applicant is not required.

¶26

In view of above, I pass following order.

3/4

5-BA-512-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

ORDER

(i) Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 83 of 2021 registered with Dattawadi police station, Pune, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till framing of charge.

¶33

(iii) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses

¶34

(iv) The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶36

order.

¶37

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

4/4

Rohan Ashok Ovhal v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Ashok Ovhal 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

Santosh Kashinath Dhane Vs State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Madhukar Waychal Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Waman Yelwande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaya Tushar Sukenakar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra Singh Subhash Singh Juni Vs State of Maharashtra

Sunil Raya Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra