Bablu Mahendra Singh Pal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

2024, an incident occurred in which the victim girl aged about 9 years was sexually abused by the Applicant. Specific acts done by the Applicant are mentioned in the First Information Report. On the basis of the said information, the Applicant came to be arrested on 19^th November, 2024. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of BNS before the Magistrate. The victim was sent for the medical examination., however, the mother of victim declined medical examination. On completion of investigation, chargesheet is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Applicant has fairly drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 24^th April, 2026 passed by the predecessor of this Court accepting the statement of the learned APP that the evidence of the victim would be recorded before next month and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the said order. It is submitted that till date, no such evidence is recorded. He therefore, seeks enlargement of the Applicant on bail on merit. It is his submission that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of

¶25

2/5

¶26

17-ba802-25.doc

¶27

BNS recorded before the Magistrate indicates that the incident, as alleged has never occurred. In this backdrop, denial of the mother of the victim to subject the victim for medical examination indicates that there is no substance in the allegation against the Applicant. Since the Applicant is in jail from November, 2024 and as the trial is not likely to be concluded in short time, he seeks bail.

¶28

Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposed the application by citing the seriousness of the crime. It is their contention that the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNS sufficiently show the involvement of the Applicant in this crime.

¶29

There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law that in case the statement of the victim is free from doubt, it can become sole ground for conviction of the accused. However, in case inconsistency occurred in the statement of the victim during the different stages of investigation, it would be necessary for the Court to consider the corroborative evidence while accepting the case of the

3/5

17-ba802-25.doc

prosecution.

Here in this case, in the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS before the Magistrate, the victim in clear term admits that the accused has not even touched her. This is completely contrary to the statement made in the FIR as well as the statement of the victim under Section 180 of BNS recorded by the police. In this backdrop, refusal of the victim to undergo medical examination creates serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. The Applicant has no criminal history. Since, primafacie this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that this is the case of false implication and the Applicant is entitled for bail.

¶34

At this stage, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 apprehends that the Applicant would pressurize the victim and the witnesses and prejudice will cause to the trial. In response to this submission, learned counsel for Applicant on instructions makes statement that the Applicant will not enter the jurisdiction of Jogeshwari Police Station till conclusion of trial. Statement of the Applicant is accepted as an

¶35

4/5

¶36

17-ba802-25.doc

¶37

undertaking to this Court and it takes care of the apprehension

¶38

of the victim and the prosecution. Hence the following order :

¶39

O R D E R :

¶40

a). The Application stands allowed.

¶41

b). The Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with

¶42

Crime No.405 of 2024, registered with Jogeshwari Police Station on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount for the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶43

c). The Applicant not to contact the victim or any witness directly or indirectly and not to interfere into the evidence of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.

¶44

d). The Applicant not to enter the jurisdiction of Jogeshwari Police Station till conclusion of trial.

¶45

e). It is clarified that above observations are prima-facie in

¶46

nature and would not bind Trial Court / parties during trial.

¶47

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶48

5/5

Bablu Mahendra Singh Pal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Mahendra Singh Pal v. the 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

Arbaz Rafique Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Pune vs Smt. Priyanka Sandip Jadhav and Ors.

Imran Jahurul Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Dontus Chidokwe and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Sabi Safulla Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Ranjeet Hiraman Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.