Juned Ahmed Abdul Majeed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

2] The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested on 01.03.2025 in connection with Crime No.99/2025, dated 23.02.2025, registered with Jintur Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 498-A, 323, 315, 34 of IPC, 1860 & under Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 & under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986.

¶13

3] Mr. Suyashkumar S. Jangada, learned counsel appears for respondent no.2 / victim and seeks leave to file vakilpatra.

¶14

2

¶15

BA971.2025

¶16

4] Leave granted.

¶17

5] Mr. Suyashkumar S. Jangada, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 is present in the court and that she has no objection for the bail being granted.

¶18

6] The case against the applicant as is seen from the FIR is that the applicant had physical relations with the victim when she was minor and later on she was forced to marry. It is also stated that he married the victim. Accordingly, the FIR is registered under the above referred sections including the offence of POCSO Act, on account of the fact that the applicant maintains relations with the victim when she was a minor. The earliest assault is stated to have taken place when she was of 17 years of age.

¶19

7] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have married before the registration of the FIR and that the relations were consensual when she was of the age of knowledge.

¶20

8] Today, the victim is present in the court, who is identified by the learned counsel appearing for the victim / Respondent No.2 and, also, considering that the victim has no objection for grant of bail and also considering that prima facie the relations appears to be consensual and that

¶21

3

¶22

BA971.2025

¶23

the applicant has performed marriage with the victim before registration of the offence, the applicant can be granted bail.

¶24

9] In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :

¶25

a] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.99/2025, dated 23.02.2025, registered with Jintur Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 498-A, 323, 315, 34 of IPC, 1860 & under Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 & under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶26

b] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial.

¶27

c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.

¶28

4

¶29

BA971.2025

¶30

d] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶31

e] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change.

¶32

10] Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶33

11] It is also 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.

¶34

12] The application stands disposed of.

¶35

marathe

¶36

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

Juned Ahmed Abdul Majeed Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juned Ahmed Abdul Majeed Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Similar cases

Balasaheb Bhimrao Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sarangsingh Udhamsing @ Udhalsing Tak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Ismail Alias Choli Mohammad Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahebrao Subhash Wadje and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

National Highways Authority of India Through its Project Director Shivaji Vasant Pawar vs Samarth Sahakari Pathpedhi Maryada, Dhule and Ors.

Saphal Hospital and Research Centre Private Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Kirtish Gajanan Moghe vs Viswatmak Jangli Maharaj Ashram Trust, Chaitnyapuri through It S President