Dolma Raju Tamong vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

Dolma Raju Tamong vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the applicant on bail in Crime No.169 of 2023 registered with Faraskhana Police Station on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the imposed conditions (exclusion from Faraskhana Police Station territorial jurisdiction except trial dates; monthly reporting to the police station named by the I.O. on the 1st of each month between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m.; no inducement, threat, promise or tampering with evidence; regular attendance at trial); liberty reserved to the State to seek cancellation of bail if the applicant commits a similar offence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 169 of 2023, notwithstanding strong opposition by the learned APP and the learned Counsel for the victim, and on what conditions bail should be granted.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant, that the charge-sheet has been filed on completion of investigation, that there are no antecedents against the applicant, and that the applicant has been in jail for about one year while the maximum punishment is stated to be three years, the court held that further custody of the applicant is not necessary and allowed the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

To prevent the possibility of repeating a similar offence, the court imposed stringent conditions: the applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Faraskhana Police Station till conclusion of the trial except on trial dates; shall provide his address and nearby police station to the I.O. and attend that police station on the 1st day of every month between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial; shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or tamper with evidence; shall attend trial regularly unless exempted; and liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail if the applicant commits a similar offence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Justice Anil S. Kilor, 26 August 2024 — Criminal Bail Application No. 98 of 2024 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Dolma Raju Tamong, in custody about one year in Crime No. 169 of 2023 (Faraskhana Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 370, 370-A, 344, 363 and 366-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 2012; Sections 3, 6 of Passport Act, 1950; Rule 3(1) of the Foreigners Order 1948; and Section 14-A (AB) of Foreigners Act. With the charge-sheet filed on completion of investigation, no antecedents against the applicant, and the maximum punishment stated as three years, the court held that further custody was not necessary and allowed the application despite strong opposition from the APP and the counsel for the victim (Respondent No. 2). Bail was granted on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, under stringent conditions: the applicant barred from entering the territorial jurisdiction of Faraskhana Police Station till conclusion of trial except on trial dates; monthly reporting to the police station named by the I.O. on the 1st day of every month between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m.; no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts and no tampering with evidence; regular attendance at trial; and liberty granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail if the applicant commits a similar offence. Fees of the counsel appointed for respondent No. 2 (victim) to be quantified as per the Rules.