AMANDEEP PRAMOD SHARMA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA NASHIK SESSIONS COURT BA 354 OF 2022 SECTION 376, 376(2), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(h), IPC, AND POCSO ACT

Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.B.Appln.No.354/2022 CNR NO.MHNS010011912022

Amandeep Pramod Sharma Vs. State.

Heard:

Ld. Adv. Mr. G. L. Bodke for the applicant.

Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S.S. Sangle for the State.

Perused the say filed by the complainant/victim.

1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.29/2022 registered at Police Station, Ghoti, Dist. Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4, 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 & 9, 10 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 1929 r/w. S. 34 of the I.P.C. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the applicant/accused No. 1 “married” the 14 year­old minor victim and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she gave birth to a child.

2] Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that the victim belongs to Adivasi Samaj where such things are prevalent. She had a love­affair with the applicant. No purpose will therefore be served by keeping the applicant behind bars.

3]Per contra Ld. A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application on the ground that offence is serious in nature and the victim is only 14 years old. Applicant is more than 10 years older to the victim. Investigation is in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be filed. If the application is released on bail there are chances of his tampering with prosecution witnesses.

4] It is a well­documented fact (including by the United Nations) that early motherhood (in teenage) robs these girls of education and optimum health and also deprives them from reaching their full potential. Getting married to the victim can in no way be considered as a panacea. Perusal of the case diary indicates prima­facie case against the applicant. The very fact that the victim has filed her ‘no­objection’ to the application being granted itself indicates that prosecution witnesses are already being tampered with. Moreover, victim was brought before the Court by the ld. Advocate for the applicant. The minor victim was brought to the Court with the newborn premature Baby to make the statement. Investigation is in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be filed. Therefore, apprehension of the Ld. A.P.P. that if the applicant is released on bail, there are chances of his tampering with prosecution witnesses is also well­founded. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the application.

ORDER

Application is hereby rejected.

Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2022.03.24 11:41:10 +0530 Nashik Mridula Bhatia 23/03/2022 District Judge­2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.

Download Order Copy