Vinod Gopaldas Taneja v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

923-BA.1878-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1878 OF 2022 VINOD GOPALDAS TANEJA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocates for Applicant : Mr. Shaikh Tousif Saifuddin, Mr. Gadekar Vishal Raju.

APP for Respondent-State : Ms. V. S. Choudhari. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. S. OsmanpurkarAppointed. ...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 16.12.2022 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant.

2.

The applicant is behind bar for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act for about six (6) months.

3. Learned counsel for the victim has expressed an apprehension of repeating the crime, if he has been granted bail. Considering the allegations and progress in the trial, it would be inappropriate to keep him behind bar. However, the

923-BA.1878-22.odt apprehension of the victim can be guarded by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant VINOD GOPALDAS TANEJA be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount, in Crime No.354 of 2022, registered by Police Station Dhule City, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, on the following conditions : (a) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

(b) The applicant shall not enter in Dhule town except for the purpose of trial till the conclusion of trial.

(iii) The Secretary, High Court Legal Services, SubCommittee, Aurangabad do pay the legal fees to advocate Osmanpurkar as per the schedule.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...

vmk/-