Dismissed¶23

Vijaypal Balaram v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jul 2025BA/2808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.439 CrPC regular bail refused; Bail Application No.2808 of 2024, Bombay HC, R.N. Laddha J., decided 11 September 2025; CR No.107 of 2024, Vader Bhairav / Vadnerbhairav Police Station, Nashik Rural; offences under Ss.363, 366(A), 376 IPC and Ss.4, 8, 12 POCSO Act 2012; minor victim lured with lucrative employment, taken to Rajasthan, confined and raped; victim's S.161/S.164 CrPC statements consistent and corroborated by medical evidence; no apparent false implication; charge sheet filed and charge framed 15 January 2025; trial commenced; earlier Sessions Court bail application rejected 20 August 2024; applicant absent on listed dates; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC reveal no inconsistency. ¶23

Vijaypal Balaram vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with CR No.107 of 2024 (offences under Ss.363, 366(A) and 376 IPC and Ss.4, 8 and 12 POCSO Act, 2012).

¶12

Court's answer

The victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC reveal no inconsistency.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The victim categorically stated that the applicant took her to his residence in Rajasthan under the guise of employment, confined her, and committed rape.

¶23

Key takeaways

The key allegations align with the medical evidence and there is no apparent reason to falsely implicate the applicant.ratio¶23
Prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to indicate the applicant's involvement in the crime.ratio¶23
Considering the gravity of the offence, the commencement of the trial and the material placed on record, the Court was not inclined to grant bail and rejected the application.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (R.N. Laddha, J.), by order dated 11 September 2025, dismissed Bail Application No.2808 of 2024, filed on 6 July 2024 by Vijaypal Balaram (aged 23, labourer, lodged in Nashik Road Central Jail) seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC in CR No.107 of 2024 of Vader Bhairav Police Station, Nashik Rural, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376 IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant was unrepresented and none appeared on 11 July 2025 and 18 August 2025; during pendency a charge sheet was filed and charge framed on 15 January 2025, and an earlier bail application before the Sessions Court had been rejected on 20 August 2024. On merits, the Court found the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC free of inconsistency — she categorically stated the applicant took her to his Rajasthan residence under the guise of employment, confined her and raped her — the key allegations aligned with the medical evidence, there was no apparent reason for false implication, and prima facie material indicated the applicant's involvement. Considering the gravity of the offence, the commencement of trial and the material on record, the Court declined bail and rejected the application.

¶1

Digitally signed byCHITRA CHITRASANJAY SANJAYSONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.09.11 20:47:39 +0530

¶2

Chitra Sonawane. 1-BA-2808-2024.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Bail Application No.2808 of 2024

¶5

Vijaypal Balaram Age-23 yrs Occ: Labour, R/o Ward No.14, Dhalia NGC, Hanumangad, Satipara, Rajasthan State. (Nashik Road Central Jail).

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra (through the Vadnerbhairav Police Station) ….Respondent.

¶9

None for the Applicant. Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for Respondent / State.

¶10

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 11 September 2025.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in connection with CR No.107 of 2024, registered with Vader Bhairav Police Station, Nashik Rural, for offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

11 September 2025

¶15

Chitra Sonawane. 1-BA-2808-2024.docx

¶16

None present on behalf of the applicant. The present application was filed on 6 July 2024. Previously, on 11 July 2025 and 18 August 2025, none appeared for the applicant.

¶17

The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, on instructions, apprises the Court that during the pendency of the present bail application, a charge sheet was filed and a charge was framed on 15 January 2025. He further submits that during the pendency of the present application, the applicant preferred another bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 20 August 2024. The learned APP further argues that the applicant established contact with the victim via the Sharechat App, during which he misrepresented himself as the owner of two companies and a retail establishment. Through these deceptive claims, he persuaded her to leave the care of her legal guardian and travel to Delhi, subsequently proceeding to Dhaliya, Rajasthan, where he unlawfully detained her at his residence and forcibly committed rape on her. He further asserts that the nature of the offence is quite serious, involving significant implications for both the victim and the community at large. Furthermore, as the trial has already commenced with testimonies of key witnesses being presented, the learned APP argues that the applicant’s request is untimely and unwarranted

Page 2 of 3

11 September 2025

Chitra Sonawane.

1-BA-2808-2024.docx

at this stage, and his release on bail would hinder the pursuit of justice.

¶23

Upon a careful examination of the records, it appears that the applicant removed the minor victim from the care of her lawful guardian by persuading her with a lucrative employment opportunity, and ultimately, confining her at his residence and committing rape on her. A perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC reveals that there is no inconsistency. She categorically stated that the applicant took her to his residence in Rajasthan under the guise of employment, confined her, and committed rape. The key allegations align with the medical evidence. There is no apparent reason to falsely implicate the applicant. Prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to indicate the applicant’s involvement in the crime. Considering the gravity of the offence, the commencement of the trial, and the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. As a result, the application stands rejected.

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

11 September 2025

Vijaypal Balaram v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal Balaram v. State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankush Kanhoji Kashid vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shubhangi Nikhil Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra

Kondiba Hanmant Godase vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yoshita Sanjay Gokhale vs State of Maharashtra

Amit Anant Mahadik vs State of Maharashtra

Nitin Vishram Salvi vs State of Maharashtra