Allowed

Samadhan Ashok Chandanshiv v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jun 2024BA/739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an applicant accused under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(N) IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 POCSO Act. Court noted the alleged consensual relationship, victim near majority, and detention period, and allowed bail with conditions including non-tampering and attendance at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with witnesses, furnishing Aadhaar and mobile number, and attend

Samadhan Ashok Chandanshiv Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:10726

¶2

ba-739.24

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

BAIL APPLICATION NO.739 OF 2024

¶7

Samadhan S/o Ashok Chandanshiv, Age-23 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Wadhe Bholai, Wagholi, Pune, Dist-Pune.

¶8

...APPLICANT

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,

¶11

X Y Z

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. Vishal Raju Gadekar Advocate for Applicant. Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Ms. Mayuri G. Kasturkar Advocate appointed through Legal Aid Committee.

¶14

CORAM: S.G. MEHARE, J.

¶15

DATE : 13^th JUNE, 2024

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶18

The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.0138 of 2024,

¶19

ba-739.24

¶20

¶21

registered with Chikalthana Police Station, District – Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366(A) 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶22

It is the case of brother in law and sister in law having sex.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of elder sister of the victim, the victim was insisting that the applicant should marry her. The victim was about 17 years and 10 months old at the time of so-called offence. The possibility of consensual sex cannot be ruled out. Statement of the victim shows the alleged offence was the singular incident. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of detention, it would not be appropriate to keep applicant behind bars. Hence, the following order :

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(I) Bail Application is allowed.

¶26

(II) Applicant Samadhan Ashok Chandanshiv be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

¶27

ba-739.24

¶28

¶29

Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount, in above crime, on the condition that:-

¶30

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

¶31

(b) The applicant shall furnish his Adhar Card and Mobile Number with an undertaking that he shall not change the phone number till the conclusion of the trial.

¶32

¶33

(III) Ms. Mayuri G. Kasturkar is appointed by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to represent the cause of respondent No.2. Her Legal fees are quantified at Rs.5000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

¶34

[ S.G. MEHARE , J. ]

¶35

asb/JUNE24

Samadhan Ashok Chandanshiv v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Ashok Chandanshiv 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

Mohiniraj j@ Munna Ashok Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Suresh Manpade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balpreetsing @ Ashish S/O Nanaksingh Sapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Kailas Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra Rangnath Gangurde @ Babalu Bhujang Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Nivrutti Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another