Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 391 (BOM)

Prashant Gopal Raut v. State of Maharashtra

2015-02-09

PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application under Section 439 read with Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.241/2014 registered with Police Station, Pandharkawada, Dist. Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Section 376(N), 315 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act"). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to the report lodged at the instance of the victim submitted that the allegations against the applicant are of sexual exploitation of the victim. Learned counsel submits that the victim herself states in the report that while she was studying in 10th class, love relationship was developed between her and the applicant. She further states that some time in the year 2012, the applicant had indulged in the act of physical intimacy with her. In the year 2013, when she carried pregnancy, the applicant insisted upon her to terminate the pregnancy and assured her for marriage. The applicant then provided certain pills/tablets for termination of the pregnancy. Thereafter, again the applicant, on assurance of marriage, exploited the complainant sexually, again resulting in pregnancy. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the report, the victim herself states that at the calls of the applicant, she was visiting the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that according to the report, the relationship was not resisted by the victim. Learned counsel further submits that even though the victim alleges that the applicant impressed upon the victim to terminate the pregnancy in the year 2013 and accordingly, the pregnancy was terminated, the close intimacy between the applicant and victim was continued thereafter also. Learned counsel further submitted that insofar as the allegation that the victim is under aged/minor girl, the only material is in the form of School Leaving certificate. Learned counsel submits that there is no ascertainment of the age of the victim by the investigating agency by any scientific method. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant in his young age of 23 years and earning his livelihood by plying an auto-rikshaw. He submits that the applicant is behind the bars for more than 4 months. Learned counsel submits that there is no ascertainment of the age of the victim by the investigating agency by any scientific method. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant in his young age of 23 years and earning his livelihood by plying an auto-rikshaw. He submits that the applicant is behind the bars for more than 4 months. He submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate the investigating agency and as the charge-sheet is filed, there is no reason for keeping the applicant behind the bars. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the application. Learned APP submits that considering the fact that the victim and the witnesses are of village Wadhona buzruk, there is apprehension that the applicant may pressurize the witnesses and it would cause hindrance in the trial. 6. Considering the material placed on record, I find considerable merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. Perusal of the material shows that the victim and the applicant were having intimacy continued in spite of the allegation that in the year 2012, the applicant exploited the victim sexually and pressurized the victim to terminate the pregnancy. The material in respect of the age of the victim is only in the form of school leaving certificate and though, though various medical tests are conducted, it seems that the investigating agency failed to receive any scientific material for ascertainment of the age of the victim. 7. In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant has made out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. The apprehension of the State can be taken care of by imposing the condition on the applicant to attend the police station, Pandharkawada and to reside atleast 50 kms away from Wadhona buzruk, Tah. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal, till commencement of the trial. In the result, the criminal application is allowed. 8. The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.241/2014 registered with Police Station, Pandharkawada, Dist. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal, till commencement of the trial. In the result, the criminal application is allowed. 8. The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.241/2014 registered with Police Station, Pandharkawada, Dist. Yavatmal 376(N), 315 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount on following conditions : [a] The applicant shall attend Pandharkawada police station on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon till commencement of the trial and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and co-operate the investigation agency. [b] The applicant should maintain a diary of his attendance duly countersigned by the Investigating Officer/P.S.O. [c] The applicant shall reside at a place atleast 50 Kms away from village Wadhona buzruk, Tah. Kelapur, Dist.Yavatmal till commencement of the trial [d] The applicant shall inform the address of his temporary residence and contact number as well as the address and contact numbers of his relatives at Wadhona bu. to the police station, Pandharkawda. [e] He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. [f] The applicant should not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission. In case of breach of the conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to state that the observations of this Court in said order are for considering the application for bail and the learned Session Judge may not be influenced by these observations while conducting the trial.