Disposed

Balaji Taterao Kambale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2024ABA/418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by a lodge owner accused of abetting POCSO offences by not verifying a minor victim's age when the main accused booked a room. Court protected him with interim anticipatory bail, PR bond of Rs.30,000, and directions to attend the police station and cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties; applicant to attend police station 26-28/02/2024 and cooperate; matter stood over to 14/03/2024.

Balaji Taterao Kambale vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

6-ABA-418-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 418 OF 2024

¶4

YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL

¶5

Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2024.02.14 17:26:51 +0530

¶6

Balaji Taterao Kamble .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Abhishek S. Nandimath a/w Suyash Khose, for the applicant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 538 of 2023 registered at Vaduj Police Station, District Satara on 17/11/2023. Initially the FIR was lodged under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,5(1)(6) and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( for short,POCSO Act) were added.

y.s.patil

1 of 4

6-ABA-418-2024.doc

Prosecution case is that the informant’s daughter, who was about 15 years and 10 months of age in December 2023, was kidnapped by the main accused Sangram on 16/11/2023. She was taken in a car by the main accused Sangram and his friends Yash and Ganesh. On 17/11/2023, at around 5.00 a.m. they reached at Vakad. The accused Sangram and victim stayed in a lodge. There they had their physical relations. The allegations against the applicant are that he was conducting the business of that lodge. He was present at the time when the accused Sangram and victim booked a room in the lodge. It is alleged that the applicant did not verify the age of the victim and thus abetted the commission of offence under POCSO Act

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

¶16

main accused had booked his lodge on the pretext that they had to appear for some examination and considering their difficulty, after verifying Aadhar card of the accused, the applicant has provided them a room. He submitted that at the highest it is case of negligence and offences under POCSO would not be applicable to

y.s.patil

2 of 4

6-ABA-418-2024.doc

the case of the applicant. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶21

Learned APP submitted that the applicant has not attended the police station and is not co-operating with the investigation.

¶22

Considering these submissions, the applicant can be protected for the time being with directions to co-operate with the Investigation. Hence the following order.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 538 of 2023 registered with Vaduj Police Station, District Satara, till the next date, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶25

(ii) The Applicant shall attend concerned Police Station from 26/02/2024 to 28/02/2024

y.s.patil

3 of 4

6-ABA-418-2024.doc

between 01.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶31

(iv) Stand over to 14/03/2024.

¶32

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶33

y.s.patil

¶34

4 of 4

Balaji Taterao Kambale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Taterao Kambale 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Corporation Bank Vs Byranganalli Koressiddappa Manjunath and Ors.

Jageshri Umesh and Anr. Vs Gautam Ashra and Anr.

Prakash Keshav Chitnis (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1A) Smt. Jyoti Prakash Chitnis and Ors. Vs Smt. Shila Mahadev Dalvi and Ors.

Rasika Urvajit Parkar and Anr. Vs Urvajit Uttam Parkar

Litesh Kullinkant Sanghvi and Ors. Vs Ravindra Raichand Dharmshi and Ors.

Vishal Vitthal Kondhalkar Vs Mayuri Vishal Kondhalkar and Anr.