Sagar Sachin Londhe v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2270 OF 2025 Sagar Sachin Londhe ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Anr.
...Respondents
_______ Mr. Ranoji Deshmukh for Applicant.
Mr. Harsh Koht for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Deepak Mane, (PSI) Miraj Rural Police Station, present. _______
CORAM
:
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :
16th SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C.
1.
By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.193 of 2024 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and under Sections 3, 4, 5(L), 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO"). 2.
It is prosecution's case that on 3rd April 2024, the applicant kidnapped the daughter of first informant and sexually assaulted her and performed fake marriage with her.
Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:
2025.09.17 13:15:34 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR
3.
It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant and victim had love affair. Hence, they both ran away from their house. There was no kidnapping of the victim by the applicant. At the time of incident, the victim was around 15 years old, whereas applicant was 19 years old. The applicant is behind bar for more than one year. There is no progress in trial. Hence, requested to allow the application.
4.
It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that applicant kidnapped the minor victim and sexually assaulted her. He performed fake marriage with her. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application. 5.
I have heard all the learned counsels, perused the FIR and documents produced on record. There is delay in lodging in FIR. At the time of incident, age of victim was around 15 years old, whereas age of applicant was 19 years old. There is no progress in trial. Applicant is a student. If he remain behind bar, his education life will be ruined. Considering these facts his further detention is not required.
6.
In view of the above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed;
(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.193 of 2024 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the victim and witnesses or any person concerned with the case. (iv) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court dates, regularly.
7.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.
8.
It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
9.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)