Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. B.A. No.245/2022 (CNR No. MHNS010007252022)
Anil Madhavrao Kharote Vs. State.
Heard :
Learned Adv. Mr. R. J. Kasliwal for the applicant.
Learned A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.
I. O. present.
1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.337/2022 registered at Police Station, Nashik Road for the offence punishable under Sections 354 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the accused/applicant runs a grocery store. He called three minor girls (two of them aged 10 years and one of them aged 17 years) inside his shop, fondled their breast and also kissed them on their cheeks and lips.
2.Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a retired public servant. He was working as a Jailor and is 60 years old. The informant is the wife of a police officer. No purpose will be served by keeping the applicant behind bars.
It cannot be ruled out that the FIR is false and is filed with an oblique motive. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. It is embarrassing and humiliating for him to have been arrested when he has himself served as a Jailor. It is preposterous to believe the allegations of the prosecution considering the age of the applicant and considering that it is not possible for the applicant to call girls across the counter. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Applicant should therefore be released on bail.
3.Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that there is primafacie case against the applicant. There is no reason for the complainant to lodge a false FIR. Merely because the applicant has been a public servant/Jailor or is 60 years old does not indicate in any manner that he has not committed the offence. Moreover, as far as provisions of the POCSO Act are concerned, the presumption as to guilt exists against the offender. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has committed the offence against three girls.
Applicant resides in the same vicinity as the victims. If he is released on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. There is no change in circumstances after the previous bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits. Filing of chargesheet cannot be considered to be change in circumstance.
4.Perusal of the chargesheet indicates primafacie case against the applicant. Merely because the informant is the wife of a police officer does not indicate that the FIR is false. The FIR involves allegation against three young girls and normally nobody would make false allegations of such nature involving their own children. Similarly, merely because the applicant is a senior citizen or a retired public servant is in no way an indication that he can not commit such an offence. Similarly, it is also not implausible for such offences to be committed in a shop. In any case, at this juncture, this Court is not deciding the
culpability or otherwise of the applicant but is only deciding the bail application. Admittedly, applicant is a resident of the same locality as the victims. Therefore, apprehension of the Ld. A.P.P. that if the accused is released on bail, there are chances of his tampering with prosecution witnesses is wellfounded. Merely because chargesheet has been filed, the applicant does not become entitled to be released on bail. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Order is dictated & pronounced in open court.
Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2022.03.02 17:49:49 +0530 Nashik Mridula Bhatia 02/03/2022 District Judge2 and Addl. Sessions Judge Nashik.