Dismissed¶24

Sachin Kailash Chotmal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025BA/2010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Bail Application No.2010 of 2024; Justice Abhay S. Waghwase; decided 23 January 2025; bail rejected; POCSO Act Sections 4, 6, 8, 12; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 64, 64(1), 64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 137(2); rape of minor girl aged 14; Wadodbazar Police Station Crime No.0198 of 2024; District Aurangabad; applicant in custody since 11.07.2024; charge-sheet filed; gravity of offence; Sections 161 and 164 CrPC statements of victim; 9 to 10 injuries on medical examination; consensual-relationship claim rejected; High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee fee direction.

What did the court decide?

Despite the charge-sheet having been filed, the Court declined regular bail, taking into account the gravity of the offence. ¶22

Sachin Kailash Chotmal Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

-12010-24-BA

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:1859

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2010 OF 2024

¶5

Sachin S/o Kailash Chotmal Age: 23 years, Occu.: R/o. Umravati, Tq. Phulambrei, District : Aurangabad. … Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Wadod Bazar, Tq. Phulambre, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Ms. Surekha G. Chincholkar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N.D. Batule, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Ms. Pooja Apache, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 21 JANUARY 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JANUARY 2025

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

On account of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.0198 of 2024 registered at Wadodbazar Police Station, District Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(1), 64(2)(m), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS] and under Sections

¶14

4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act], applicant pressed into service instant bail application.

¶15

-22010-24-BA

¶16

Pointing out that the applicant is behind bars since 11.07.2024, learned counsel submitted that, there was love affair. That, victim herself was acquainted with the applicant. That, he brought her back and dropped her at the school. That, whatever happened was consensual. That, applicant did not abscond and therefore, his such conduct deserves consideration. Learned counsel pointed out that, there was no force nor assault on victim. That, even statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is silent to that extent. That, now applicant being behind bars since more that five months, learned counsel seeks grant of regular bail.

¶17

Learned APP as well as learned counsel appointed for victim have strongly opposed the application on the ground that victim is barely 14 years and few months old. She was initially kidnapped. That, on medical examination, injures were noticed by medical expert. That, offence is serious. That, there is proof about victim being minor and, according to both of them, there are allegations of threats. Learned counsel for victim pointed out that, victim was hospitalized for almost a week. That, as serious offence is committed on a minor, they both opposed the application.

¶18

After going through the FIR and papers, it transpires that FIR is at the instance of minor’s uncle Tulshiram Sonawane. Victim is said to be 14

¶19

-32010-24-BA

¶20

years of age. There are allegations that on 11.07.2024, call was received from the school that victim is not in the school. The acquaintance of

¶21

informant, namely Pawan, informed that victim was returning home weeping and therefore she was questioned, wherein she has named the present applicant, who took her to the urinal of a closed beer bar at Khamgaon Phata and forcibly raped her. Statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On going through the medical papers, it seem that 9 to 10 injuries are noticed of several parts of the person of victim. As regards to age is concerned, there is no dispute. Provisions of POCSO Act are shown to be attracted.

¶22

In the light of above and on going through the papers, even though charge-sheet is filed, taking into account the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Hence, the following order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Application is rejected.

¶25

(ii) Fees of learned counsel appointed to represent respondent no.3 is to be paid through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.

¶26

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGE

¶27

S P Rane

Sachin Kailash Chotmal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kailash Chotmal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Pi. Ali Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayyad Atiq Ibrahim Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pooja Kapil Jaiswal and Another Vs Kapil Madanlal Jaiswal

Mahesh @ Mangesh Suresh Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Yogesh Sitaram Patekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shahram @ Sharam Chagan Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra