..2..
Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.B.Appln.No.498/2022
CNR NO.MHNS010019292022
Devnath Pandu Bendkoli Vs. State.
Heard:
1.
Ld. Adv. Mr. A. K. Kale for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.
Perused the say filed by the complainant/victim.
This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.3/2022 registered
at Police Station, Harsul, Dist. Nashik for the offence
punishable under Sections 363 & 376 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections 4 & 8 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is the case of
prosecution in brief that the accused/applicant kidnapped
the minor victim, committed sexual intercourse with her
and impregnated her.
2.
Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that the victim is
now a major and is more than 18 years old (although she
may have been a minor when the offence was committed).
Ld. Adv. Mr. Kale has submitted that the victim is present
in the Court and is filing a say that she has ‘no objection’
to the accused being released on bail. Her parents are also
present before the Court. He has submitted that the
accused married the victim after she turned 18 years.
3.
Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle has submitted that
the say of the victim is being written by the Ld. Junior
advocate on behalf of the applicant which shows that the
victim is already being tampered with. Moreover, I. O. is
..2..
absent and on the previous date he had sought time to file
the reply. Reply is not filed till today. Therefore, any short
date be given for filing say.
4.
Despite the said request, Ld. Adv. Mr. Kale has insisted
that the bail application should be decided today itself and
that at the least, applicant should be released on interim
bail.
5.
In view of the fact that the say of the investigating agency
is not on record, it would be against the principles of
natural justice to allow the application without hearing the
I. O. No application for interim bail has been filed. Even if
it were filed, even then it could not have been heard
without hearing the investigating agency. In view of the
foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the bail
application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
30/04/2022
Digitally
signed by
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.04.30
16:32:04
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge2 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.