Allowed

Dinesh Datta Mane v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2024BA/1183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for POCSO and IPC offences arising from an alleged love affair; the court found prima facie evidence of a consensual relationship and granted bail with conditions including a territorial exclusion from Taluka Yeola.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety in like amount, subject to conditions.

Dinesh Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905-BA-1183-24- CORRECTED.DOC

¶2

Sayali Upasani

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1183 OF 2024

¶5

Dinesh Datta Mane ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Ashwini B. Jadhav, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Aditya A. Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Mrs. S. M. Yadav, APP for State-Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:- ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶9

DATED:- 23^rd AUGUST, 2024

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 639 of 2023, registered with Yeola Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶13

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, it is evident that there was a love affair between the applicant and the

¶14

1/3

¶15

The order corrected as per order dated 28^th August, 2024.

¶16

905-BA-1183-24- CORRECTED.DOC

¶17

victim. Though in the statement, the victim has alleged that there was a threats given by the applicant that he would commit suicide if she did not respond to his wish to meet him, the police have arrested the applicant and the victim from the Hotel on 23rd November, 2023 in the midnight when both were sleeping. In the statement of the victim, she narrated the above referred fact. Thus, prima facie, it is evident that she did not raise any alarm when the applicant allegedly had sexual intercourse with her. It appears that prima facie there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the respondent–victim, on the other hand, pointed out the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Saif Vs. state of U. P. and Others in Criminal Mis. Application No. 57521 of 2022 dated 28^th March, 2023, to oppose this application.

¶19

However, considering the above referred observations in paragraph No. 3, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

i. The Bail Application is allowed;

¶22

ii. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 639 of 2023, registered with Yeola Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

¶23

2/3

¶24

The order corrected as per order dated 28^th August, 2024.

¶25

905-BA-1183-24- CORRECTED.DOC

¶26

Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount;

¶27

iii The applicant shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction of Taluka Yeola till the conclusion of the trial except on the date of trial;

¶28

iv. The applicant shall provide his address and name of the nearby police station to the I.O, which he shall attend the said Police Station on 1^st day of every month between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial except on the date of trial;

¶29

v. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

¶30

vi. Liberty is granted to the State to apply cancellation of bail if the applicant commits similar offence.;

¶31

vii. The Applicant shall attend the trial before the Trial Court regularly on every date unless exempted by the Trial Court for any reason.

¶32

viii. Application stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶33

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶34

The order corrected as per order dated 28^th August, 2024.

¶35

3/3

Dinesh Datta Mane v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Datta Mane 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adv. Mukund Madhukar Dudhkawale vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Aadil Javed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Praveen Ashok Babar vs State of Maharashtra

Dolma Raju Tamong vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Subhashchandra Gupta vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Prakash Gosavi vs State of Maharashtra