Allowed

Gangaram Namdev Khande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2024BA/3144/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC by accused arrested in a 2016 case involving sexual offences on a minor under IPC and POCSO. Trial had not progressed despite an earlier court order to expedite it. Court granted bail after seven years of custody.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on PR bond Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties; monthly attendance at police station; no tampering with witnesses.

Gangaram Namdev Khande Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8-ba-3144-23.doc

¶2

Digitally signed byDINESH DINESH SADANAND SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2024.02.08 18:00:40 +0500

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3144 OF 2023

¶4

Gangaram N. Khande ...Applicant Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nitin Kamble a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Chandrashive for the Applicant. Ms Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 3 FEBRUARY 2024.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1] This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.

¶10

2] The applicant came to be arrested in C.R. No.503 of 2016 registered at Khed Police Station, Pune for the ofences punishable under Sections 376 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 and Sections 2 and 3 of Anti Superstition and Black Magic Act, 2013.

¶11

3] By order dated 28 February 2023 in Bail Application No.3628 of 2021 fled by the applicant, this Court directed the trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible. The said order reads thus:

¶12

“ Considering the fact that the applicant is in jail for about 7 years, the trial court shall endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible. If the trial is not concluded within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the applicant is at

¶13

1/3

¶14

Dinesh S. Sherla

¶15

8-ba-3144-23.doc

¶16

liberty to fle a fresh bail application. The application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.”

¶17

4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that inspite of above order there is no progress in the trial and not a single witness has been examined. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than 7 years. It is thus submitted that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶18

6] On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent / State submits that the applicant is involved in the serious ofence of penetrative sexual assault on minor girl. It is submitted that considering the nature of ofence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶19

7] Inspite of order of this Court to conclude the trial as early as possible, the trial is at the same stage. The applicant is in jail for more than 7 years. The trial is not likely to conclude in near future. I am therefore, inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶22

(ii) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 503 of 2016 registered at Khed Police Station, Pune for the ofences punishable under Sections 376 and 354-A of the I.P.C.and Sections 4,6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012

¶23

2/3

¶24

Dinesh S. Sherla

¶25

8-ba-3144-23.doc

¶26

and Sections 2 and 3 of Anti Superstition and Black Magic Act, 2013 on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month, i.e., on frst Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶30

3/3

¶31

Dinesh S. Sherla

Gangaram Namdev Khande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram Namdev Khande v. the State of Maharashtra

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

M/S. Ambika Land Developers Nagpur Thr. Partner, Geeta Namdeorao Dhandale vs Rajpal S/O Laxman Raut and Another

Jitendra S/O Kisan Rathod vs Shekar Rambhau Kanoje and Another

Sharafat Husain S/O Taj Mohammad vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Home Affairs, Mumbai and Another

Justin Thadathil Varghese Vs State of Maharashtra

Suresh Bhaurao Shivale Vs State of Maharashtra

Tejaskumar @ Yalappa Gundappa Salunkhe @ Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra