Allowed¶18

Suraj Anil Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025BA/3680/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (N. R. Borkar, J.) allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 3680 of 2024, Suraj Anil Kale v. The State of Maharashtra, arising from Crime No. 271 of 2022, Chikhali Police Station, District Pune (Ss. 376(2)(n) and 328 IPC; Ss. 3, 4(a), 5(j)(ii), 6, 7 & 8 POCSO Act). Regular bail granted on a P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount; applicant directed not to contact the victim.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 271 of 2022 on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on condition that the applicant shall not contact the victim. ¶18

Suraj Anil Kale vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2-BA-3680-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3680 OF 2024 Suraj Anil Kale ...Applicant

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Chinmay Patil a/w Mr. Amit Pardeshi, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mrs. Gauri K. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

This is an application for regular bail.

¶9

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No. 271 of 2022 registered at Chikhali Police Station, District: Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4(a), 5(j)(ii), 6, 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶10

The allegations against the applicant are that in December-2021 and thereafter also he had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext that he would marry her and later on refused to marry her.

¶11

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2025.02.15 15:16:43 +0530

¶12

Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 2

¶13

2-BA-3680-2024.doc

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Victim and perused the charge-sheet.

¶15

It appears that there was a love affair between the present applicant and the victim. The applicant is in jail for more than two years. The learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that the applicant is still willing to marry the victim.

¶16

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) Criminal Bail Application is allowed;

¶19

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 271 of 2022 registered at Chikhali Police Station, District: Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4(a), 5(j)(ii), 6, 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount;

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not contact the victim.

¶21

(iv) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

Sajakali Jamadar

Suraj Anil Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Anil Kale 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

Pallavi Dalmia (Nee Pallavi Agarwal) vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangram Dadasaheb Mali vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Masu Thengal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Dhondiba Shelar vs State of Maharashtra

Vrushab Ramdas Shewale vs State of Maharashtra

Moin Sadaqat Pechkar vs the State of Maharashtra