Arjun @ Pandit Raju Salunkhe vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

By the present application, the Applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 552 of 2021 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, District Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(A) of Indian

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

Vishal

¶17

24-ba-976-2024.odt

¶18

Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5(2)(j) and 6 of Protection of

¶19

Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

¶20

Case of the prosecution is that the Applicant (accused )

¶21

kidnapped the victim (minor girl of 15 years age) from the custody of her parents and committed rape. The fact of the victim being raped, came to light when the victim became pregnant. During the pregnancy, the victim died. Said crime was registered on a complaint from the Respondent No.2 (father of the victim).

¶22

Applicant was arrested on 11^th August, 2021 and since then he is in jail.

¶23

Mr. Pawar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant states that the C.R. No.552 of 2021 is now registered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 771 of 2021 and is pending on the file of Additional Session Judge, Pune.

¶24

Bail Application (Exh.5) filed by the Applicant in the Special (POCSO) Case No. 771 of 2021 was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pune on 18^th January, 2024.

2 of 5

Vishal

24-ba-976-2024.odt

Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant states that

¶29

the Applicant is in jail since August, 2021. He submits that the Applicant in the present application presses the ground of speedy trial. He submits that though the charge is framed, till date no witnesses have been examined. He submits that the informant i.e. father of the deceased victim is also no more. Mr. Pawar relies on the orders of this Court in the cases of Niklesh Prakash Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra¹ and Vikas Chandrakant Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra² on the ground of long incarceration.

¶30

Mr. Chate, learned APP for the State does not dispute the

¶31

fact that the trial in the present crime has not commenced. He points out to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune to submit that even the complainant/ informant is dead,

¶32

Considering the fact that the Applicant is incarcerated since

¶33

11^th August, 2021 and till date no witnesses have been examined in the above said proceeding, the Applicant is justified in pressing

¶34

1 BA No. 1208/2025 Dt.08/05/2025.

¶35

2 BA No. 1963/2025 Dt,09/05/2025.

3 of 5

Vishal

24-ba-976-2024.odt

into service his right to be enlarged on bail, as he cannot continue to be incarcerated, as under trial, indefinitely.

¶40

This Bail Application is considered on the sole ground of long incarceration of the Applicant which is three years and ten months as on date. There is less likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future.

¶41

In view of above, Bail Application is allowed on the following conditions:-

¶42

a] It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 552 of 2021 registered with Hinjewadi police station, District Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5(2)(j) and 6 of Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Session Judge, Pune.

¶43

b] Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

4 of 5

Vishal

24-ba-976-2024.odt

facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence.

¶48

c] Applicant shall attend on each and every date of hearing in Special (POCSO) Case No. 771 of 2021 fixed before the trial Court, unless exempted.

¶49

d] Applicant shall upon release within three days furnish his residential address with proof and contact details to Trial Court and Investigating Officer, Hinjewadi police station, Pune.

¶50

The Legal Aid Cell to release the professional fees of learned Advocate Mr. Alura Mohd. Kasim.

¶51

Bail Application No. 976 of 2024 is disposed of in the above said terms.

¶52

[ ASHWIN D.BHOBE, J.]

¶53

5 of 5

¶54

Vishal

Arjun @ Pandit Raju Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun @ Pandit Raju Salunkhe 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Govinda Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Mayur Dipak Andhale vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Tanaji Darvatkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr Namrata Vijaykumar Khot vs State of Maharashtra

Dr Kumkum Mukesh Mishra vs the State of Maharashtra

Lata Sunil Gaikwad and Ors. vs Vaishali Pravin Gaikwad @ Rani Balu Kale and Anr.