Allowed

Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Darwha, Tah. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal and Another.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2024BA/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 POCSO Act based on a relationship with a 17-year-old on a promise of marriage. The court held consent and false-promise questions were matters of trial evidence; with investigation complete and the charge-sheet filed, further incarceration was unnecessary. Bail was granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No. 967/2023 on P.R. bond of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including not entering Darwha village except for trial dates and not tampering

Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao Vs State of Mah… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

16ba208.2024.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-NAG:4266

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 208 OF 2024

¶6

Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao V/s State of Maharashtra and another

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Mr. M.V.Rai, counsel for the applicant. Mr. H.R.Dhumale, APP for the non-applicant/State. Ms. Anuprita S. Mishrikotkar, counsel (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 12/04/2024.

¶10

The applicant came to be arrested on 27/11/2023, in connection with Crime No. 967/2023 registered with Police Station Darwha, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶11

The accusation against the present applicant is on the basis of report lodged by the victim aged about 17 years alleging that she studied upto 11th Standard and was doing the Beauty Parlor Course. She got acquaintance with the present applicant, and present applicant which resulted in a love affair. He promised her for marriage and on the promise of marriage, there was a physical relationship between them, which resulted into her pregnancy and she delivered a child. On the basis of said report, the police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

rkn

16ba208.2024.odt

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the statement of the victim it reveals that, out of a love affair, there was a physical relationship between them. It is not the case, wherein the applicant has subjected her for sexual assault out of love, but they came together out of a love affair and a physical relationship was developed between them. Now, the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the applicant is not required. In view of that, he be released on bail.

¶16

Learned APP and learned appointed counsel strongly objected the application submitting that the consent of the victim is not required is not relevant as she is below 18 years of age. On the false promise of marriage, she was subjected for sexual assault, if the applicant/accused released on bail, he would tamper with the prosecution evidence. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State, and learned appointed counsel for the victim, perused the investigation papers. From the recitals of the FIR which is lodged by the victim, it reveals, out of the love affair, she had a physical relationship with the present applicant. It is also alleged that he had promised her for marriage. Whether the victim has consented under the misconception of the facts or it was a false promise of marriage, is a matter of evidence. Moreover, the victim is 17 years of age therefore, her consent is not relevant. But it appears that out of love affairs, they came together and there

¶18

rkn

¶19

3 16ba208.2024.odt

¶20

was a physical relationship between them. Now, investigation is already completed and charge-sheet is filed, no purpose will be served by keeping the present applicant behind the bar, as further incarceration is not required. In the above circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶21

a] The criminal application is allowed.

¶22

b] The applicant- Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao, shall be released on bail, in connection with Crime No. 967/2023 registered with Police Station Darwha, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on executing of P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶23

c] The applicant shall not enter into the village Darwha except attending the dates of the trial.

¶24

d] The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the learned trial Court without seeking any exemption unless there are exceptional circumstances.

¶25

e] The applicant shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the present case.

rkn

16ba208.2024.odt

f] The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per the Rules.

¶30

The criminal application disposed of.

¶31

[ URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶32

rkn

Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Darwha, Tah. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Shrikrushna Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Darwha, Tah. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal 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

Rajesh S/O. Abhimanyu Yesansure Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

Mohammad Parvez S/O Mohammad Farooque and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Juni Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur

Mangesh S/O Manikrao Wadandre and Another vs Smt. Ankita Shravan Bansure

Ibrahim Khan @ Imran S/O Habib Ali Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Andhera, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana

Aadil Ali S/O Habib Ali Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtrathr. Pso Andhera, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana

Vitthal S/O Tatyarav Wagh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps Jaulka, Tq. Malegaon Dist. Washim