Chandrabhan Bhagirath Devraj v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:31179 1 942.BA-1357-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1357 OF 2025 CHANDRABHAN BHAGIRATH DEVRAJ
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sahil Choudhari a/w Mr. Jay Salunke h/f Mr. Choudhari Deepak D.
Addl.PP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.G. Sangle Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Z. Y. Wagh (Appointed) ...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 13th NOVEMBER 2025 PER COURT :
1.
Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Choudhari for the Applicant and the learned appointed Counsel Mrs. Wagh for Respondent No.2/complainant and the learned APP.
2.
The Applicant has approached this Court, praying for regular bail in connection with Crime No.193/2024 registered with the Chopda Gramin Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 333, 74, 115(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3.
I have gone through the charge-sheet which contains the
2 942.BA-1357-2025.doc FIR as well as the other relevant evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The perusal of the FIR shows that the role of the Applicant is identical to that of accused Harshal Raysing, who was also seen in the CCTV footage at the spot of the incident on the relevant date who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 passed in BA No.129/2025. It is alleged that both Harshal Raysing and the Applicant were guarding the original accused Vivek, who was inside the house at the time of the incident. Apart from the said CCTV footage, there is nothing to show that there was any instigation or abetment on the part of the present accused for the commission of suicide by the victim Gayatri and neither there is any evidence to show that the offences under the POCSO Act can be made out against the Applicant. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and are made only for deciding the present application. The same shall not have any bearing on the proceedings before any other Court. 4.
Be that as it may, since the Applicant is arrested on 11.10.2024, the further detention of the Applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose. The other co-accused Harshal Raysing has already been released by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 passed in BA No.129/2025. I am therefore inclined to grant the identical relief to the present Applicant. Hence the the following order.
ORDER
(a) The Bail Application is allowed.
3 942.BA-1357-2025.doc (b) The Applicant - Chandrabhan Bhagirath Devraj, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousands) with solvent surety of the like amount, in connection with Crime No.193/2024 registered with the Chopda Gramin Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 333, 74, 115(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the following conditions:
(i) The Applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence. (ii) The Applicant shall not enter into vicinity of village Galangi, Tq. Chobta, District Jalgaon, till conclusion of trial. (iii) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of concerned police station, till conclusion of trial, except for attending effective dates before the Court.
(iv) Fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent respondent no.2 is to be paid through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. (c) The Application stands disposed of accordingly. MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE NAJEEB..