Dismissed¶16

Mahadev Kishan Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jun 2025BA/603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; rape/POCSO case; victim aged 15 years made pregnant; accused aged 72 years per chargesheet; DNA report established accused as biological father of abortus; Crime No. 343/2024 dated 31.7.2024, Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv; offences under Ss. 376(1), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) IPC and Ss. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 POCSO Act, 2012; bail application dismissed with liberty to apply afresh if trial not commenced within one year; Rs.10,000/- fees directed to appointed counsel for victim/respondent No. 2; High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; BA 603/25; dated 13/06/2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail is refused: considering the DNA report establishing the applicant's paternity of the victim's abortus, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant. ¶16

Mahadev Kishan Sonawane Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in Crime No. 343/2024 for offences under Ss. 376(1), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) IPC and Ss. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for allegedly making the informant's 15-year-old daughter pregnant, is entitled to regular bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Regular bail is refused: considering the DNA report establishing the applicant's paternity of the victim's abortus, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is at liberty to file a fresh bail application if the trial does not commence within one year from the date of this order.

¶16

Key takeaways

Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad is directed to pay fees of Rs.10,000/- to the learned counsel appointed for respondent No. 2/victim.ratio¶17
The observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application, and the concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by them.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 603 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 13/06/2025): Regular bail refused to Mahadev Kishan Sonawane, stated in the chargesheet to be 72 years old, arrested in Crime No. 343/2024 dated 31.7.2024 of Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv, for offences under Ss. 376(1), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) IPC and Ss. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the F.I.R. of the father of a 15-year-old victim alleging the applicant made her pregnant. After termination of the pregnancy, the DNA report on the abortus opined the applicant to be its biological father and the victim girl its biological mother. Holding that no case was made out for regular bail, the Court dismissed the application but permitted the applicant to file a fresh bail application if the trial does not commence within one year. Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as fees to the counsel appointed for respondent No. 2/victim. Observations were expressly confined to the disposal of the bail application, the trial court to proceed uninfluenced by them.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:14857

¶2

BA 603/25

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

941 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 603 OF 2025

¶6

MAHADEV KISHAN SONAWANE VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Amir Mohammad (Through Legal Aid) APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Jaware Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr.M.S. Hange (appointed)

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 13/06/2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. M.S. Hange, learned counsel appointed for respondent No. 2.

¶12

The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No. 343/2024 dated 31.7.2024 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶13

The case against the applicant is registered by the informant, who is father of the victim. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the applicant has kept physical relationship with the daughter of the informant, aged 15 years and the applicant has made the victim pregnant. As per the chargesheet, the applicant is 72 years old. After termination of pregnancy of the victim, DNA sample of abortus was collected and in the D.N.A. report, opinion is given that the applicant is the biological father of the abortus and victim girl is the biological mother of the abortus.

¶14

BA 603/25

¶15

¶16

Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. However, the applicant is at liberty to file fresh bail application, if the trial does not commences within one year from today.

¶17

Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad is directed to pay fees of Rs.10,000/- to the learned counsel appointed for respondent No. 2/victim.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶19

The application stands disposed of.

¶20

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

¶21

SSC/

Mahadev Kishan Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Kishan Sonawane 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

Mahesh Alias Bhaiyya Gajanan Mukhmahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Arbaz Rashid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Kundlik Tribhuvan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajay Anil Salve and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Haridarali Daud Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Bajrangsing Chouvan Alias Rana Vs the State of Maharashtra