Deepak Laxman Kenjale v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 OF 2025 Deepak Laxman Kenjale .... Appellant V/s.
State of Maharashtra And Anr.
.... Respondents ---- Mr.Shailesh Chavan a/w Mr.Hrishikesh Avhad, for the Appellant. Mr.Pankaj P. Deokar, APP, for Respondent-State. Mr.Rohan Holge, for Respondent No.2.
by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date:
2025.04.09 17:21:29 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE ---- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th APRIL 2025 P.C:- .
The Special Court has rejected the Bail Application of the Appellant.
2.
The Appellant is apprehending arrest, in connection with investigation of Crime No.61 of 2025, registered with Satara Taluka Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SCST' Act) and under Section 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO' for short). 3.
It is prosecution's case that, the victim is daughter of first informant and the Appellant has outraged her modesty when she had attended the school. The Appellant is teacher of the victim.
4.
It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that, the Appellant is behind bar more than two months. The investigation is completed. The charge-sheet is filed against him. The learned counsel further submitted that, the first informant has no objection to allow the Appeal and requested to allow the Appeal.
5.
It is contention of the learned APP that, the Appellant outraged modesty of the first informant's daughter, who was 12 years and six months old, at the time of the incident. The Appellant was her teacher. If he released on bail he may abscond or may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal.
6.
It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that, first informant has no objection to allow the Appeal. N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4
7.
I have heard all learned counsel. Perused chargesheet. 8.
The allegations against the Appellant are that, he outraged the modesty of the daughter of the first informant. The Appellant is behind bar for more than 2 months. Investigation is completed, charge-sheet has been filed. Considering allegations against him his further detention is not required. 9.
In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Appellant-Deepak Laxman Kenjale be released on bail in Crime No.61 of 2025, registered with Satara Taluka Police Station, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The Appellant shall give attendance before the Investigating Officer as and when N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4
required.
(iv) The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(v) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4