Allowed

Vishal Prakash Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC8 Aug 2024BA/1011/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a bail application filed by Vishal Prakash Ingale charged under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and POCSO. The court noted potential misunderstanding and the victim's affidavit suggesting a consensual relationship, ruling that his detention served no purpose and ordering his release on bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; Applicant to be released upon furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount.

Vishal Prakash Ingale Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

929-ba-1011-2024.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:17488

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1011 OF 2024

¶6

Vishal Prakash Ingale VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Wakale Vijay Shivaji APP for Respondent/State : Ms. V.S. Choudhari Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vishal Sable

¶9

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶10

DATED : AUGUST 08, 2024

¶11

PER COURT:-

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.2/victim.

¶13

The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.688 of 2023 registered with Cantonment (Chavani) Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act.

¶14

The applicant has a theory of love affair with the victim who was around 16 years. They had developed relationship. However, some difference of opinion arose and she fall prey to her parents. Now, the victim has realized her mistake. She had sworn in an affidavit contending that it was her consensus relationship with applicant. She has no grievance against the applicant.

¶15

929-ba-1011-2024.odt

¶16

(2)

¶17

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. She

¶18

would submit that the victim was a girl and she has been sexually assaulted. Considering the gravity of the offence, bail may not be granted.

¶19

Perused the papers. There appears some

¶20

misunderstanding with the victim. It also appears that they were in relationship. The applicant might have believed her date of birth on Aadhar Card. It shows that at the relevant time, she was major. Be that as it may, the applicant is a labour. No purpose would be served

¶21

by keeping the applicant behind bar. Hence, the following order :

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶24

(ii) Applicant, Vishal Prakash Ingale, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount in the above crime, on the conditions that;

¶25

(a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall attend the trial on each and every date.

¶26

Mujaheed//

Vishal Prakash Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Prakash Ingale 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

Altaf Maheboob Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gajanan S/O. Rajaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Raja Pratap Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratanlal Hiralal Jain Vs Sow Vandana Gorakh Pawar

Pralhad Namdev Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Rajesh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another