Chandrakant Narayan Bhirud v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4219 OF 2025 Chandrakant Narayan Bhirud ... Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

... Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Siddharth Jagushte a/w. Mr. Ajit Inkikar and Kiran Kawale, Advocates for Applicant.

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Hrishikesh Naba i/b. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Ms. Ridhima Mangaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. _________________________________________________________________ by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.03.13 14:37:24 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 11th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

By this application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 289 of 2014 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 201, 325, 315, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 3, 4, 9(l), 9(m) and 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

It is prosecution's case that the applicant sexually assaulted his minor daughter repeatedly, impregnated her, she delivered a stillborn child, the body of the said child was disposed of by the applicant.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than 11 years and 8 months. The minimum punishment for the offences applied against the applicant is 10 years. The applicant has undergone imprisonment more than minimum punishment. The prosecution has examined only 2 witnesses out of 28 witnesses. It may take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the offence committed by the applicant is heinous. He repeatedly sexually assaulted his own minor daughter. When she gave birth to a stillborn child, the applicant disposed of the body of the child. The applicant continuously threatened the victim. The maximum punishment for the offence committed by applicant is life imprisonment. If the 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 counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bars for more than 11 years and 8 months. The prosecution has examined only 2 witnesses out of 28 witnesses. The minimum punishment for the offences committed by the applicant is 10 years. The applicant has undergone imprisonment more than minimum punishment. It may take time to conclude the trial.

Considering the long incarceration of the applicant, I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.No. 289 of 2014 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 30,000/- on furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount.

ii.

The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

iii.

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. 6.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, disposed of. 7.

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.

8.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)