Dismissed¶10

Prakash Roopchand Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jan 2025BA/5344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused under S.439 CrPC; offences under Ss.376, 376(2)(n)(i), 370, 370(5) IPC and Ss.4, 8, 12 POCSO Act; trafficking and sexual exploitation of two minor girls aged 11 and 13; Crime Register No.449 of 2022, Samta Nagar Police Station; earlier bail rejected by Special Court under POCSO Act; victims' age supported by CWC record, FIR and school records; no mini trial at bail stage; risk of tampering and influencing minor victims; applicant Prakash Roopchand Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra; Amit Borkar, J.; decided 13 June 2025.

What did the court decide?

The offences are grave and serious, involving sexual exploitation and trafficking of minor girls aged 11 and 13 years, and the ingredients of Sections 370 and 376 IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act are attracted prima facie on the basis of the statements of the victims.

Prakash Roopchand Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Crime Register No.449 of 2022 involving offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n)(i) and 370 IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

¶8(i)

Ratio / Principle

The age of the victims as recorded by the Child Welfare Committee and mentioned in the FIR is supported by their school records, prima facie establishing that they were minors at the time of the incident.

¶8(iii)

Key takeaways

In bail proceedings this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or evaluate credibility at that stage; the reliability of statements will be tested during trial.ratio¶8(iii)
Even if the allegation of penetrative sexual assault is absent against the applicant, the serious allegations of trafficking under Section 370 IPC, if true, are independently sufficient to deny bail.ratio¶8(iv)
Section 370(5) IPC prescribes a punishment of not less than ten years extendable to life imprisonment, especially where more than one minor is trafficked, as alleged here.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J., dated 13 June 2025) rejected a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by an accused in Crime Register No.449 of 2022 of Samta Nagar Police Station, charged under Sections 376, 376(2)(n)(i) and 370 IPC along with Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act for the alleged sexual exploitation and trafficking of two minor sisters aged 11 and 13. Held: (i) the ingredients of the charged provisions are prima facie attracted on the victims' statements, corroborated by independent social workers (Minal Pathare and Varsha Pawar); (ii) the victims' age, as recorded by the Child Welfare Committee and mentioned in the FIR, is supported by school records, and no mini trial or credibility assessment is permissible at the bail stage; (iii) even in the absence of a specific allegation of penetrative sexual assault, allegations of trafficking under Section 370 IPC are independently sufficient to deny bail, Section 370(5) IPC prescribing not less than ten years up to life imprisonment where more than one minor is trafficked; (iv) the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing the minor victims, whose testimony and that of other witnesses remained to be recorded, weighed against release.

¶1

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.5344 OF 2024

¶5

Prakash Roopchand Jagtap … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

ATUL

GANESH

KULKARNI

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.06.16 10:41:42 +0530

¶10

Ms. Apeksha M. Vora for the applicant. Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for respondent No.1-State. Ms. Priyanka H. Chavan for respondent No.2-victims. Mr. Sawant Meghwadi, PSI is present in Court.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 13, 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant seeks his release in connection with Crime Register No.449 of 2022 registered at Samta Nagar Police Station. The offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature and include Sections 376, 376(2) (n)(i), and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶14

As per the case of the prosecution, one Minal Pathare, who is associated with a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) named

¶15

¶16

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶17

Prayas, was working for the welfare and rehabilitation of women prisoners. During her work at Byculla Jail, she came in contact with one Suvarna Waghmare, who is the mother of the two minor victims in the present case. The mother was in custody at the time, and her daughters used to visit her at the jail, often accompanied by one Raghu Yadav, who is a friend of the said Suvarna Waghmare.

¶18

On 12th July 2022, Minal Pathare visited the house of the minor victims and, during her interaction, she came to know from the victims about their alleged sexual exploitation. It was alleged that Raghu Yadav, the present applicant, and some other persons were involved in the said acts. The very next day, i.e., on 13th July 2022, the victims were produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), following a recommendation made by their mother. Subsequently, the facts of the alleged exploitation were shared by Minal Pathare with one Varsha Pawar, who is associated with another organization called Committed Community Development Centre. It was specifically alleged that the applicant was pushing the victims into immoral trafficking. Based on this information, the present offence came to be registered.

¶19

During the course of investigation, it surfaced that initially Raghu Yadav started sexually exploiting the victims. Thereafter, the applicant, who was residing in the same locality, allegedly took both the minor victims to his native village. It is further alleged that while in his custody, the applicant made the victims consume liquor forcibly and forced them into activities of immoral trafficking. The police recorded the statements of the victims,

¶20

¶21

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶22

conducted their medical examination, and arrested the applicant and other co-accused. They were then produced before the Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act.

¶23

The applicant had earlier moved an application for bail before the Special Court, which came to be rejected. He has now approached this Court by filing the present application seeking bail.

¶24

Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there are significant contradictions in the statements made by the victims. She pointed out that the victims, in their police statements, have claimed that they were not made aware of the contents of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable document or material to prove the age of the victims as being 11 and 13 years respectively on the date of the incident. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no specific allegation that the applicant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victims, and as such, the ingredients of Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are not satisfied. Therefore, she urged that the applicant be released on bail.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the bail application and pointed out that the victims were minor girls aged about 11 and 13 years at the relevant time. He referred to the detailed statements of the victims as well as statements of other prosecution witnesses which prima facie indicate that the applicant

¶26

¶27

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶28

had transported the minor girls from their home and taken them to another location. The prosecution case further discloses that the applicant used threats and coercion, and forced the minor victims into immoral trafficking. He submitted that these acts attract the rigours of Section 370(5) of the IPC, which deals with trafficking of more than one minor using threats, coercion or inducement. He, therefore, submitted that considering the gravity of the allegations and the vulnerability of the victims, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶29

After giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having carefully gone through the material placed on record, the following aspects emerge:

¶30

(i) The offences alleged against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving sexual exploitation and trafficking of minor girls, aged 11 and 13 years. The ingredients of Sections 370 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act are attracted, prima facie, on the basis of the statements of the victims.

¶31

(ii) The statements of the minor victims recorded under Section 164 of CrPC before the Magistrate narrate that they were not only forcibly taken away by the applicant but were also subjected to threats and compelled to consume alcohol. There are allegations of immoral trafficking facilitated by the applicant, which, at this stage, cannot be ignored. The prosecution has also placed on record the statements of independent social workers, namely Minal Pathare and

¶32

¶33

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶34

Varsha Pawar, which corroborate the chain of events and support the version given by the victims.

¶35

(iii) Though the learned Advocate for the applicant raised doubts regarding the age of the victims and inconsistencies in their statements, it needs to be observed that the age of the victims, as recorded by the Child Welfare Committee and mentioned in the FIR, is supported by their school records, which prima facie suggests they were minors at the time of the incident. In bail proceedings, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or evaluate credibility at this stage. The question of reliability of statements will be tested during trial.

¶36

(iv) So far as the argument regarding lack of allegation of penetrative sexual assault is concerned, even if such an allegation is absent against the applicant, the prosecution has levelled serious allegations of trafficking under Section 370 IPC, which, if true, is independently sufficient to deny bail. Section 370(5) of IPC prescribes a punishment of not less than ten years and extends to life imprisonment, especially when more than one minor is trafficked, which is the case here.

¶37

(v) The law is settled that in cases of sexual offences, especially involving minor victims, the version of the prosecutrix needs to be given due weightage at the stage of bail. In cases involving minor victims of sexual assault, courts must be cautious and sensitive while exercising

¶38

¶39

21-ba5344-2024-Final.doc

¶40

discretion in bail matters.

¶41

(vi) The offence under Section 370 IPC read with POCSO provisions is grave, punishable with long-term imprisonment. The possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing the minor victims, if the applicant is released on bail, cannot be ruled out. The stage of trial is yet to commence, and the material witnesses, including the victims and the social workers, are yet to be examined. Furthermore, the offence alleged involves not only grave moral turpitude but also the exploitation of the most vulnerable segment of society—minor girls. The potential for threats, influence or inducement to the victims cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶42

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the gravity of allegations, the age of the victims, the corroborative statements of independent witnesses, and the serious charge under Section 370(5) of IPC, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The possibility of misuse of liberty and danger to the safety and mental well-being of the victims also weighs against the applicant.

¶43

10. Accordingly, the Bail Application stands rejected.

¶44

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶45

Prakash Roopchand Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Roopchand Jagtap 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

Nitin Laxmidas Dama vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Ministry of Dairy Development

Thuppil Sundarajan Natrajan vs State Cooperative Election Authority

G-Tech Construction and Fabricators Represented through Its Managing Partner Kundan Jha vs Union of India through Department of Atomic Energy (Dae) and 3 Ors.

Ummed Singh Nahata vs Union of India Ministry of Environmental and Forest

Shivaji Madhav Jadhav and Anr. vs Nashik District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. Throu. Its Chief Executive Officer

Amit Prakash Patel vs the Union of India