Quashed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Sitaram Yadav

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024APL/1613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought police remand of an accused under POCSO Act, arguing the Special Judge wrongly denied custody due to non-production of a checklist. The High Court quashed the bail order, directing the investigating officer to strictly follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines before any further action, and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order quashed; Investigating Officer directed to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

The State of Maharashtra vs Sachin Sitaram Yadav — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

910-APL-1613-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1613 OF 2024

¶4

The State of Maharashtra …. Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Sachin Sitaram Yadav …. Respondent

¶7

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.11.25 14:03:41 +0530

¶8

Mr.Shrikant V. Gavand, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr.Anand Misha i/b Mr.Jitendra Gautam, Mr.Amit Dubey and Ms.Poonam P., for the Respondent. Mr.Lahane, API, Naupada Police Station. Mr.Tate, API, Thanenagar Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 21^st NOVEMBER 2024

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

. Heard learned APP for the Applicant-State and learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶13

The learned counsel for the Respondent tendered copy of the reply. It is taken on record.

¶14

The learned APP submits that, Crime No.825 of 2024 registered under Section 74, 75(1)(i) of the Bharatriya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children

¶15

From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short) against the

¶16

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶17

910-APL-1613-24.doc

¶18

Respondent. When Respondent was produced before the learned Special Judge with Application seeking police remand. The learned Special Judge has released the Respondent on bail without granting Police Custody on the ground that check list was not produced alongwith the remand Application. The learned APP further submitted that, when offence under sections of the POCSO Act, is registered against the Respondent. The reason's were mentioned for granting the custody but not considered. The learned Special Judge should have granted Police Custody of the Respondent. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶19

It is prosecution’s case that, the victim was forcefully kissed by the Respondent. The victim is 11 years old. The Police arrested the Respondent and produced before the learned Special Judge.

¶20

The learned APP further submitted that, if this Court dispose of the Application by giving direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the Guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex

¶21

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶22

910-APL-1613-24.doc

¶23

Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bhiar & Anr¹ would suffice.

¶24

It is contention of the learned counsel for Respondent that, the maximum punishment of the offence registered against the Respondent is upto five years. The Investigating Officer has not followed the Guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). No check list was produced before the learned Special Judge, while seeking Police custody of the Respondent. The learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the Application.

¶25

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge.

¶26

While passing the order, the learned Special Judge has observed that, the maximum punishment of the offence registered against the Respondent is of five years. No check list is produced on record, on that ground, the learned Special Judge has released the Respondent forthwith.

¶27

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶29

910-APL-1613-24.doc

¶30

In my view, as per statement of the learned APP, the Investigating Officer is ready to follow the Guidelines given in case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). Considering his statement, I pass following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The impugned order dated 12^th October 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Thane in Remand Application dated 12^th October 2024 in CR No.825 of 2024 registered with Thane Nagar Police Station is quashed and set aside.

¶33

(ii) The Investigating Officer shall follow the Guidelines given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bhiar & Anr. Till then no action shall be taken against the Respondent.

¶34

(iii) The Application is disposed of.

¶35

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶36

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Sitaram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sachin Sitaram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Its Divisional Manager vs Smt. Usha Narayan Pawar and Ors.

Divisional Officer, Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd.,Nashik vs Surekha Raju Chaudhari and Ors.

Shri Parvati Shankar Nagari Sahakari Patasanastha Ltdutturthrough Itsmanager Prakash Krushna Mohite vs Sou. Rupali Rahul More

Kulaswamini Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Indersingh Roopsingh vs State of Maharashtra

Akshay Eknath Bhoir vs State of Maharashtra

Shahul Suresh Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra