Dismissed¶24

Aniket Madhukar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2025BA/827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Bail Application No. 827 of 2024, decided 20-03-2025 by N. R. Borkar, J.: regular bail sought by Aniket Madhukar Waghmare, in custody approximately three years in Crime No.177 of 2022 (Rajgad Police Station, Pune) under IPC Sections 313, 363, 376(2)(i) and POCSO Act Sections 4 and 6; victim aged about 14 years 8 months; alleged elopement and two-month stay at Katraj, Pune with sexual intercourse, concealment of the applicant's marriage, and abortion allegedly caused by medicine administered through a meal; trial not commenced; bail REFUSED — application dismissed on account of the victim's minority and the deception practised by the married applicant.

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail refused and the application rejected. ¶24

Aniket Madhukar Waghmare vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; regular bail refused and the application rejected.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.177 of 2022 (offences under IPC Sections 313, 363, 376(2)(i) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act).

¶10

Court's answer

On perusal of the victim's statement, the Court found that on the date of incident she was hardly 14 years and 8 months old and that the applicant, though married, had deceived her and made her elope with him.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail and rejected the application.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — Refused. Aniket Madhukar Waghmare, arrested in Crime No.177 of 2022 (Rajgad Police Station, Pune) for offences under Sections 313, 363, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, sought regular bail. Per the prosecution version, the victim — aged about 14 years 8 months — got acquainted with the applicant while helping her mother at Girija Hotel, Khedshivapur; they eloped and stayed together about two months at Katraj, Pune, during which he allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her; she was then taken to his native place where she first learnt he was a married man with a daughter; and her pregnancy was allegedly aborted by medicine administered through a meal. The defence contended there was a consensual love affair, that there was no material regarding the alleged abortion, and that the applicant had been in custody about three years with the trial yet to commence; the State and the victim's appointed counsel opposed, stressing her minority and the deception practised by the married applicant. Held (N. R. Borkar, J., 20-03-2025): perusing the victim's statement and considering the overall facts and circumstances — in particular her tender age of 14 years 8 months and the fact that the married applicant deceived her into eloping — the Court was not inclined to release the applicant; the bail application was rejected.

¶1

4-BA-827-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 827 OF 2024

¶4

Aniket Madhukar Waghmare ...Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZ ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar i/by Mr. Harshwardhan Milind Pawar a/w Adv. Padmasinh Pratap Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. V. Walve, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1– State.

¶7

Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar, Appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 20^th MARCH, 2025.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This is an application for regular bail.

¶11

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.177 of 2022 registered at Rajgad Police Station, District : Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 363, 376(2)(i) of the Indian penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶12

The mother of the victim was working in one Girija Hotel at Khedshivapur and the applicant was working in a

1 of 3

Zeenat Pathan

4-BA-827-2024.doc

shop adjacent to the said hotel. The victim used to accompany her mother to help her. It is alleged that there the victim and the applicant got acquainted with each other. It is alleged that thereafter they eloped and stayed together for two months at Katraj, Pune and during the said period, it is alleged that the present applicant committed sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant took her to his native place, where for the first time she came to know that the applicant is married person and has daughter. It is alleged that the applicant through meal had administered certain medicine to the victim due to which her pregnancy was aborted.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned appointed advocate for respondent No.2/victim.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim. It is submitted that the alleged act was consensual. It is submitted that there is no material in relation to alleged abortion. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is in jail for approximately three years and the trial has not commenced. It is submitted that the applicant therefore, may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State and the learned appointed advocate for the respondent No.2/victim submit that the victim was aged about

2 of 3

Zeenat Pathan

4-BA-827-2024.doc

14 years and 8 months only. It is submitted that though the applicant was married, he deceived her and made to elope with him. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶24

I have perused the statement of the victim, who on the date of incident was hardly 14 years and 8 months old. Though the applicant was married, he deceived her and made her to elope with him. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The Application is rejected.

¶25

3 of 3

¶26

Zeenat Pathan

Aniket Madhukar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Madhukar Waghmare v. 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

Pratima Pandey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tushar Jagannath Hankare vs Chaitrali Tushar Hankare

Yatin Pandharinath Vekhande vs Pranali Yatin Vekhande

Omprakash Shankar Chauhan vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Hanumant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Urmila Rojan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra