Akshay Ramdas Suryavashi v. The State Of Maharashtra

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2021 Akshay Ramdas Suryavanshi .... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ----- Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar for Applicant.

Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent. ----- CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE :11th JANUARY, 2021 P.C. :

1.

This is an application for relaxation of condition imposed by the court of sessions while granting bail to the applicant. The applicant was granted bail in connection with C.R.No.87 of 2020 registered with Satana police station, Dist. Nasik, under sections 354, 354D and 506 of I.P.C. and under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. This order was passed by the additional sessions Judge, Malegaon on 15/04/2020 in Criminal Bail Application No.133 of 2020. The condition which the applicant is taking exception to is as follows: Gokhale

: 2 :

"iii) Applicant shall not enter in the Tahasil area of Satana Taluka till disposal of the case. He shall communicate his residential address during aforesaid period to this court as well as to the Investigating officer of concern case."

2.

After this order was passed, the applicant again moved an application vide Exh.03 in sessions case No.119 of 2020 for relaxation of that condition. That application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon vide his order dated 12/11/2020.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's mother is not keeping well and, therefore, the applicant needs permission to enter the Tahasil of Satana. 5.

I have considered the allegations against the applicant and material against him. The case, basically, is in respect of harassment caused by the present applicant to a minor victim. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon in his order dated 12/11/2020 passed below Exh.3 in Sessions Case No.119 of 2020,

: 3 :

refusing the relaxation of that condition, has properly dealt with this aspect. The nature of the allegations against the present applicant requires protection for the victim and, therefore, this condition is necessary. I am not inclined to relax that condition. 6.

Hence, this application is rejected.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)