Juned Ahmed Abdul Majeed Ansari v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:15375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 975 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2025 JUNED AHMED ABDUL MAJEED ANSARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vikrant P. Raje APP for Respondent / State: Mr. D. J. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. Suyashkumar S. Jangada ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 19.06.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
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.
3] Mr. Suyashkumar S. Jangada, learned counsel appears for respondent no.2 / victim and seeks leave to file vakilpatra.
4] Leave granted.
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.
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. 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.
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
the applicant has performed marriage with the victim before registration of the offence, the applicant can be granted bail.
9] In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :
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. b] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe