Rajendra Jawarilal Jain v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:6665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2201 OF 2024 RAJENDRA JAWARILAL JAIN

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Suniket Anil Kulkarni APP for Respondents: Mr. N. B. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. Shubham Kanhu Shinde ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 05.03.2025 P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.207/2024, registered at Warangaon Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3] This court by order dated 07.02.2025 has granted interim protection to the applicant considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR, so also, considering the fact that the victim who is of 17 years and few months along with her father had compromised with the applicant.

4] The learned APP has pointed out on the last occasion that the victim has engaged more than 25 female workers in the establishment run by him and this is the case of molestation and this case cannot be permitted to be compromised as there could be other incident of the like nature. It would be necessary to find out as to whether the present applicant has indulged in other similar offence with other female employees.

5] The allegations against the applicant in the instant case is that while the informant was travelling on another motorcycle he stopped the same and took the informant with him and, thereafter, molested her. In absence of other complaint, this court cannot assume that the applicant has molested other female employees. 6] The learned APP submits that there are no antecedents against the present applicant.

7] Considering the compromise, so also, that there are no antecedents against the applicant, the interim protection deserves to be confirmed.

8] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 07.02.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

9] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

10] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

11] The application stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe