Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2025BA/1146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC regular bail granted on parity with released co-accused and 3+ years custody with trial not commenced; alleged repeated sexual assault of minor under S.376/504/34 IPC, Ss.4,6,17 POCSO, Ss.80,81,87 JJ Act, Ss.3(3),4(4)(5),523 PCPNDT, S.12 Notary Act; child's DNA matching accused; PR bond Rs.30,000 with restrictions near victim. Crime No.87/2021, Mahabaleshwar PS, Satara; BA 1146/2024; Shivkumar Dige, J.; 11-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No.87 of 2021 (Mahabaleshwar Police Station, District-Satara) on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; conditions: not to enter the area where the victim resides till recording of her evidence, and to attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer. ¶¶35

Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail on the principle of parity, the co-accused against whom allegations of sexual assault are made having already been released on bail. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

Considering the prosecution case and the fact that the co-accused against whom allegations of sexual assault are made has been released on bail, the Applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Applicant has been behind bars for more than 3 years and the trial has not commenced; as it may take time to conclude the trial, this further supports release on bail.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

Bail granted on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions that the Applicant shall not enter the area where the victim resides till recording of her evidence and shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Shivkumar Dige, J. — Criminal Bail Application No.1146 of 2024, decided 11 February 2025. Regular bail granted to the Applicant in Crime No.87 of 2021 (Mahabaleshwar Police Station, District-Satara) registered for offences under Sections 376 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 17 POCSO Act, Sections 80, 81 and 87 Juvenile Justice Act, Sections 3(3), 4(4)(5) and 523 PCPNDT Act and Section 12 Notary Act, arising from the alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor victim (aged 16 years and one month) resulting in pregnancy and delivery, the DNA of the child allegedly matching the Applicant's. Bail allowed on the principle of parity — the co-accused facing like allegations of sexual assault had already been released — together with the Applicant's incarceration of more than three years without commencement of trial. Conditions: PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; Applicant not to enter the area where the victim resides till recording of her evidence; attendance at the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶1

31-BA-1146-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1146 OF 2024

¶4

Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad …. Applicant V/s.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.02.12 18:36:29 +0530

¶7

Mr.Keshav Chavan i/b Ms.Ankita D. Marbhal, for the Applicant. Ms.Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP, for Respondent-State. Ms.Shalini Shankar, for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 11^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

. By this Application, Applicant is seeking regular bail

¶12

in Crime No.87 of 2021 registered with Mahabaleshwar Police Station, Districit-Satara, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (‘IPC’ for short) and under Sections 4,6 and 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2005 (‘POCSO’ for short), Section 80, 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice Act, under Section 3(3),4(4)(5), 523 of Pre-Conception and Pre-

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶14

31-BA-1146-2024.doc

¶15

Natal Diagnostic Techniques, 1994 (‘PCPNDT Act’ for short) and Section 12 of the Notary Act.

¶16

It is prosecution case that, the Applicant and coaccused sexually assaulted the victim repeatedly. Due to said assault victim got pregnant and delivered child at the time of the incident. The victim was 16 years and one month old, It is alleged that, the DNA of child matches with the DNA of the Applicant.

¶17

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that, co-accused against whom some allegations are levelled has been released on bail. The learned counsel further submitted that, it is alleged that, the Applicant and co-accused sexually assaulted the victim, though the DNA of the delivered child matches with the Applicant’s DNA, it will be part of the trial to prove the prosecution’s case. The Applicant is behind bar more than 3 years. Yet trial has not started. There was love affair between the Applicant and victim. It may take time to conclude the trial. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶18

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶19

31-BA-1146-2024.doc

¶20

It is contention of the learned APP that, along with Respondent No.3 that the Applicant and co-accused repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim, who was minor. Due to sexual assault, she got pregnant and delivered child. The DNA of the child matches with the Applicant. It shows that the Applicant is father of the child. At the time of the incident victim was minor.

¶21

The Applicant was aware about it. If Applicant released on bail he may threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶22

I have heard all learned counsel’s. Perused charge-

¶23

sheet.

¶24

It is prosecution case that, the Applicant and coaccused repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim, due to said sexual assault victim got pregnant and delivered a child. The DNA of the child matches with the Applicant. The co-accused against whom allegations of the sexual assault are made has been released on bail.

¶25

Considering these facts, the Applicant is entitled for

¶26

bail on principle of parity. Moreover, the Applicant is behind bar

¶27

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶28

31-BA-1146-2024.doc

¶29

more than 3 years. Yet trial has not been commenced. It may take time to conclude the trial.

¶30

Considering these facts, I pass following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The Applicant-Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad be released on bail in Crime No.87 of 2021 registered with Mahabaleshwar Police Station, District-Satara, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(ii) The Applicant shall not enter in the area where victim resides till recording of the evidence of the victim.

¶34

(iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶35

(iv) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶37

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaba @ Sagar Hanumant Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited Nashik Thr. the Divisional Manager vs Sunandabai Suresh Bagul and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Chandrakant Ravji Dore

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Pune Thr.Regional Managaer vs Rajendra S/O. Bhagwan Bhujbal and Anr.

Adil@Shalu Ibrar Siddhiqui vs State of Maharashtra

Roshan Hariram Khare vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Annasaheb Ganpat Gaikwad and Anr.