Arjun Sahebrao Jadhao v. State Of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps, Umarkhed Tah. Umarkhed Dist. Yavatmal And Another.
2024:BHC-NAG:3858 27.ABA.124.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.124 OF 2024 (Arjun Sahebrao Jadhao Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J.S. Wankhede, Advocate for the applicant. Ms R.V. Sharma, APP for the State.
Ms R.M. Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- APRIL 1, 2024.
Heard.
2.
Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.28/2024 registered with Police Station Umarkhed, District Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 354, 354-A, 354-D, 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the applicant approached to this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted on the basis of report lodged by the victim aged about 15 years the present applicant is arraigned as an accused on an allegation that he used to restrain her whenever she was proceeding on her two wheeler vehicle. On 13.01.2024 at about 11.00 a.m., the present applicant hold her hand and expressed that he likes her. On the
27.ABA.124.24.odt basis of the said report, police have registered the crime. He further submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. Now, the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. In view of that, interim protection granted to the present applicant deserves to be confirmed.
4.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the application on the ground that there is apprehension of tampering of the witnesses. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
5.
Having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers which shows that now investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. The custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. In view of that, interim protection granted to the present applicant vide order dated 16/02/2024 deserves to be confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
6.
The application is disposed of.
7.
The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya