Siddhu@Siddhant Deepak Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 of 2 42.BA.100.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2024 Siddhu @ Siddhant Deepak Patil Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.Kuldeep Patil i/by Ms.Salil D.Dhuru, Advocate for Applicant. Ms.Priya Patil, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mrs.Geeta P.Mulekar, APP, for State.

CORAM :

ANIL S.KILOR, J.

DATE :

28th June 2024 PC :

1.

Heard.

2.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.40 of2022 registered with Mhasala Police Station, District Raigad, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(e), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s.4,6,8,10,12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

3.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that DNA report does not support the case of the prosecution against the present Applicant. It is submitted that since charge sheet has been filed, further custody of the Applicant is not necessary. It is submitted that MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2024.07.01 17:26:30 +0530 the Applicant is a young boy and considering his life prospects, he may be released on bail.

2 of 2 42.BA.100.2024.doc 4.

On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposed the application and points out that on the date of incident the victim was of 14 years. Repeatedly she was sexually assaulted by both the accused who are father and son. It is submitted that the victim has given birth to a child. She further submits that there is every possibility that if Applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence. 5.

Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 victim reiterates the submissions of learned APP and points out the statement of victim recorded u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence available against Applicant on record. It is prayed that applicant may not be granted bail.

6.

I have considered the charge sheet and material collected by the Investigating Officer, including the DNA report and statement of the victim u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. The offence is serious and there is sufficient evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against Applicant to show his involvement in the alleged offence. Though the DNA report shows that the father of the Applicant, co-accused is the biological father of the child, however, other evidence is sufficient to indicate that Applicant has also committed sexual intercourse with victim.

7.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly Bail Application is rejected.

(ANIL S.KILOR, J.) MST