Dismissed

Arjun @ Dada Rohidas Takale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC15 Jun 2023BA/791/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a bail application in a POCSO and kidnapping case. The Court held that the victim was below 13 years, rendering her incapable of consent. Despite the applicant's claim of a relationship, the Court ruled that a love affair is not a ground for bail in such serious offences involving minors.

What did the court decide?

Bail application stands dismissed. No bail granted to the applicant.

Arjun @ Dada Rohidas Takale Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

 917-BA.791-23.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

917 BAIL APPLICATION NO.791 OF 2023

¶5

ARJUN @ DADA ROHIDAS TAKALE
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.
Advocate for Complainant to assist APP : Mr. Salunke P. B.-
Appointed.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE :15.06.2023

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP

¶11

for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the
complainant.

¶12

2.The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.332 of 2022,
registered at Jamkhed Police Station, District Ahmednagar for
the offences punishable under Sections 376(A)(B), 376(2)(F)

¶13

(N), 363 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4, 6, 17
of the POCSO Act.

¶14

3.The applicant was 27 years old and the victim was
around 12 years old at the time of the incident. The applicant
has a case that the victim and the applicant were living as

¶15

 917-BA.791-23.odt

¶16

¶17

husband and wife. However, the family members of the victim
were opposing their relationship. Hence, they have falsely
implicated in the crime. The offences of the sexual assault have
been added after 20 to 24 days from the date of the lodging of
the report. The victim being a minor was tutored and forced to
give the statement against the applicant/accused. The
investigation has been completed. Nothing is to be recovered
from the applicant. The victim and the applicant are relatives,
but the family members were not happy with their
relationship. He never kidnapped the victim and did the
forceful sex with her. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶18

4.Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the
application. He would argue that the victim was below 13
years. Her categorical statement is sufficient to believe that
the applicant did sex with her. The applicant kidnapped her.
The law is settled that in case of a girl, who is below 13 years
though has love affair is not a ground to consider the bail.
There was a vast difference in the age of the applicant and the
victim. The applicant forced the victim to flee away with him.
The offence is serious. Hence, the application deserves to be
dismissed.

¶19

 917-BA.791-23.odt

¶20

¶21

5. The age of the victim is the prime issue in this case. She

¶22

was below 13 years. The law is settled that if the girl was
below 13 years, though had a love affair, is not a ground to
grant the bail. The statement of the victim is material. There is
ample evidence against him that he kidnapped the victim and
roamed with her for days together posing as husband and wife.
Considering the age of the victim, it cannot be accepted that
she was competent to give a consent for sex. The offence is
apparently serious. Both of them are the resident of the same
village. Therefore, the interest of the victim is to be protected.

¶23

6. For the above reasons, the Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.

¶24

7. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services, SubCommittee, Aurangabad do pay the legal charges to advocate Salunke as per the schedule.

¶25

vmk/-

Arjun @ Dada Rohidas Takale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun @ Dada Rohidas Takale 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

Nandu Hukumchand Pawar Vs Raver Peoples Co-Oprative Society Limited, Raver through Its Manager Kalidas Daldas Wani

Jagjeetsingh @ Jaggi Dilbagsingh Sandhu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Uttam Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Xyz Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Deepak Raju Batade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Maksood S/O. Shaikh Noor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another