The High Court rejected an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused in POCSO and IPC cases. The Court observed that the trial court had recorded elaborate reasons for bail, noting the delay in lodging the FIR and the subsequent marriage between the victim's sister and the accused, and found no ground for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2024
Alpesh B. Sondagar
.Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
.Respondents
Mr. Mangesh Patel, Advocate, for the Applicant. Ms. Savita Yadav, APP, for Respondent No.1 – State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE: 05.04.2024
P. C.
“ 8] Applicant is behind the bars since 08.12.2023. He was in police custody till 11.12.2023 and thereafter he is taken in judicial custody. Part of his custodial interrogation is completed and his further presence is
Page No. 1
Anand
no more required for investigation.
9] After going through the FIR it is seen that incident is of the year 2021 of which the victim girl never knows exact date and time. It is important to note that inspite of such alleged Act by applicant, the victim girl again went to the tuition class of sister of applicant and in the month of March, 2023 she started attending some other class and also changed the residence. On 20.11.2023 elder sister of this victim girl has married the applicant against the wish of her parents and then on 06.12.2023 i. e. after the span of about two years, the present report came to be lodged.
10] Anyway this is regular bail application after having undergone custodial interrogation. There was no question of any discovery or recovery. In the statement recorded under Section 164 the victim girl has narrated some additional incident regarding the video prepared by this applicant. But to that also Advocates of applicant by filing pursis at Exh. 16 have informed this Court that he is ready to surrender his mobile phone to the investigating officer. In such circumstances, I see no reason to detain him behind the bars for indefinite period. If some conditions are imposed then purpose of the prosecution would be served. Hence, the following order.”
exact date and time when the incident occurred the year 2021. The victim again went to the tuition classes of the sister of the Respondent No. 2. In the month of March 2023, because of the incident in question i.e. the incident of the year 2021, the victim started attending some other tuition classes and also changed the residence. The learned Trial Court has further recorded that on 20.11.2023, the elder sister of the victim got married with the Applicant against the wishes of her parents. F.I.R. was lodged on 06.12.2023. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has given valid
Page No. 2
Anand
reasons for granting bail to the Respondent No.2.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page No. 3
Anand
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of bail granted to the accused under Sections 354 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 POCSO Act was justified?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Alpesh B. Sondagar
The State of Maharashtra
Jaydeep Natwarlal Makwana
MADHAV J. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
