Sourabh Lahu Gutal v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.4394 OF 2024 Sourabh Lahu Gutal ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...

Respondents ------------------- Mr. Vikrant Phatate with Vishal Waghela, for the applicant. Mr.S.S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent / State. Ms. Manishal Devkar, for the respondent no. 2. --------------------

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.12.19 15:28:28 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

19TH DECEMBER, 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.766 of 2023, registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, Dist: Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

3.

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that

the victim along with the applicant stayed together at Madhavnagar, Sangli. They stayed there for about 1 month and during this period, it is alleged that the applicant established physical relations on many occasions with the applicant. The applicant was about 15 years old and it can be said that she was sufficiently matured to understand the consequences of her every action, including her decision to elope with the applicant. Thus, prima facie, it appears that there was a love affair. 4.

In the circumstances, since the charge-sheet is filed and the applicant is in jail from last more than 1 year and furthermore, there is unlikelihood that the trial will be concluded in near future, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. 5.

However, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 while strongly opposing the bail application state that the applicant and the victim are residents of the same village and there is every likelihood that if the applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the prosecution witnesses or victim. 6.

Thereupon, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, makes a statement that the applicant is ready to abide by any condition including not to enter into territorial jurisdiction of Tal: Pandharpur, till the conclusion of the trial. 7.

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

i) Criminal application is allowed;

ii) It is directed that the applicant be released on bail in connection with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, Dist: Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand with one solvent surety in the like amount;

iii) The applicant shall not enter into territorial jurisdiction of Tal-Pandharpur, till the conclusion of the trial;

iv) The applicant shall provide his address and name of the nearby police station to the IO, which he shall attend the said Police Station on 1st day of every month between 10.00a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till the conclusion of the trial except on the date of trial;

iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

v) Liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail in case of any breach of condition or if

the applicant misuse of liberty;

vi) The applicant shall attend the trial before the trial Court regularly on every date unless exemption is granted by the trial Court.

The application is disposed of.

8.

Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the respondent no. 2 be quantified as per the rules.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)