Jaisen Shivdas Dhembre Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Jaisen Shivdas Dhembre Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail allowed; interim protection granted vide order dated 13.11.2024 confirmed subject to conditions (attendance at police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer; no contact with the victim during pendency of the case; co-operation with the investigation and trial-Court proceedings), breach rendering the protection liable to cancellation; Criminal Application filed for assisting APP disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 589 of 2024 (Basmath City Police Station, District Hingoli; offences under sections 74, 75, 115(2), 296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 8 of POCSO Act), is entitled to anticipatory bail and confirmation of the interim protection granted on 13.11.2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 is confirmed on specified terms.

Key takeaways

Confirmation is subject to conditions: (i) the applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer; (ii) the applicant shall not contact the victim in any manner during the pendency of the case; and (iii) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and in the proceedings before the trial Court.ratio¶27
In the event the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, the protection shall be liable to be cancelled.ratio¶30
Prima facie, the allegations levelled against the applicant after grant of interim protection by this Court appear to be fabricated; consequently the prayer to vacate interim relief and reject the application is rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Arun R. Pedneker, J. — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1939 of 2024 (decided 08.01.2025): Applicant apprehending arrest in Crime No. 589 of 2024 (13.10.2024, Basmath City Police Station, Dist. Hingoli) under sections 74, 75, 115(2), 296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 8 of the POCSO Act. Interim protection granted on 13.11.2024 (with reference to the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C statement) is CONFIRMED; allegations of Rs. 1,000/- property damage said to have occurred after such protection held prima facie FABRICATED. Conditions imposed: reporting to the police station as required by the IO; no contact with the victim during pendency; co-operation with investigation and trial; violation makes the protection cancellable. Observations expressly confined to the ABA disposal.

2025:BHC-AUG:415

1

1939.24 ABA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

918 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1939 OF 2024 WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2025

JAISEN SHIVDAS DHEMBRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. D. Hande APP for Respondent-State: Mr. V. M. Chate Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. G. L. Deshpande

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 08.01.2025

P.C. :

1] Mr. G. L. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is allowed to assist the learned APP. Criminal Application filed for assisting APP is disposed of accordingly.

2] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and Advocate for respondent No.2.

3] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.589 of 2024 dated 13.10.2024, registered at Basmath City Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under sections 74, 75, 115(2), 296, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and 8

2

1939.24 ABA

of POCSO Act.

4] This Court by order dated 13.11.2024 has granted interim protection to the applicant. The applicant has co-operated with the investigation.

5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that considering the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this Court had granted interim protection to the applicant. Perusal of statement of the victim shows that, the victim knew the applicant, the act alleged appears to be consensual.

6] The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that, after grant of interim protection by this Court, the applicant along with other boy came on motor cycle in front of the house of the informant and caused damage to the property of the father of the victim of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel therefore prays to vacate the interim relief and rejection of present anticipatory bail application.

7] Considering the submissions of the applicant and the learned APP, prima facie the allegations levelled against the applicant after grant of interim protection by this Court seems to be fabricated.

8] In view of the above, the application is allowed

3

1939.24 ABA

and the interim protection granted vide order dated 13.11.2024 is confirmed on the following terms :

i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

ii] The applicant shall not contact to the victim in any manner during the pendency of the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

9] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

10] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

11] The application stands disposed of.

PRW

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE