Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. B. A. No.2/2022
Hiraman Santu Fasale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Heard : Learned Adv. Mr. B. M. Singada for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S.S. Sangle for the State.
1.The applicant has sought bail under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.592/2021 registered at Dindori Police Station, for the offence punishable under sections376(1), 376(2)(i)(j), 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 6, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the applicant/ accused kidnapped the minor victim by enticing her and committed sexual intercourse with her over a period of time.
2.Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the victim (who is 16 years, 6 months days old), willingly eloped with the applicant. It is a case of loveaffair and that bail application should be allowed in such cases. In order to buttress his contentions further, he has relied on the citation in the case of Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav V/s. State of Maharashtra 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 1351. In this case bail was granted to the applicant even though the victim was only 14 years old and had willingly accompanied the accused.
3.Per contra, Ld. APP has opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence is serious in nature. There is primafacie case against the applicant. Investigation is in progress and chargesheet is yet to be filed. The above citation is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case and also because in the case at hand, the accused is almost double the age of the victim and is a married man with a child.
4. The citation in the case of Anirudha (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in as much as in the case at hand the investigation is in progress and chargesheet is yet to be filed apart from the fact that the accused is a married man. Apprehension of the Ld. A.P.P. that if the accused is released on bail, there are chances of his tampering with the prosecution witnesses is 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: 2022.01.13 13:12:30 +0530 Nashik M.V.Bhatia Dt.12/01/2022 District Judge2 and Addl.Sessions Judge Nashik.