1
Cri.BailAppln.No.730/22­Ex.1
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.730/ 2022
Navnath Tanaji Tidame
.. Applicant
Accused.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra
through PI Harsul Police St. ..
(Cr. No. I 65/2022)
Respondent.

Order below Exh. 1
1.

The
applicant/accused Navnath Tanaji Tidame
claims bail in C.R. No. I­65/2022 for the offences punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(w), (I),
(II), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s. 4, 8 & 12 of the POCSO
Act registered with Harsul Police Station.

2.

Heard Learned Advocate Shri R.J.Kasliwal, for the
applicant and learned A.P.P. Smt. Sangale for the State. Victim
alongwith her father/informant is present. Perused the papers of
investigation.

2
3.

Cri.BailAppln.No.730/22­Ex.1
It is the case of the prosecution that applicant induced
informant by alluring her and thereby sexually exploited her by
committing repeatedly rape upon her and made her pregnant.

4.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
victim is 17 years 5 months old. There are no allegations that the
applicant committed violent act against the victim.

For long
period, victim kept mum. Delay in lodging report is fatal to the
prosecution case. Apparently, relation is consensual. Applicant
is behind bar since 28.05.2022.
keeping him behind bar.

No purpose would serve by
Therefore, ld. Advocate for the
applicant submitted that the applicant be released on bail.

5.

Per contra, ld. APP resisted the application with the
contention that the offence committed by the applicant is very
much heinous and serious in nature. Consent of minor victim is
immaterial. Applicant has taken disadvantage of the situation of
the minor victim. He allured her and thereby sexually exploited
her. Victim even could not understand her pregnancy. It is only
when she suffered stomachache and her pregnancy revealed, she
disclosed the incident.

Applicant is 29 years old person. He is
married and father of two children.
question of love­affair is out of place.

In such circumstances,
He has intentionally
exploited the child. He is not entitled for grant of bail.

3
Cri.BailAppln.No.730/22­Ex.1
Victim and her father are present in the Court. They
have resisted the application filed by the applicant. Victim has
stated that she is under fear that applicant may cause harm to
her, if released on bail.

6.

On perusal of record, it reveals that the report is
lodged by the father of the victim.

Victim has disclosed the
incident when she suffered stomachache and thereby her
pregnancy revealed on medical check­up.

Marital status of the
applicant was known to the minor victim, therefore, it cannot be
said that she was under the impression that he would marry her.
It is apparent that applicant has taken disadvantage of the
vulnerability of child victim.

Statement of the victim is very
much consistent with the case of prosecution. It seems that the
applicant has exploited the victim in pursuit of the sexual
pleasure. It is not the case of applicant that he has been falsely
implicated.

The averments made in the report and in the
statement of victim and other record including medical report of
the victim would show that the prosecution has made out prima
facie case against the applicant for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC and consequent charges under POCSO Act.
The offence committed by the applicant is very much heinous
and serious in nature. The maximum punishment contemplated
under the Act can extend upto imprisonment for life.

Thus,
4
Cri.BailAppln.No.730/22­Ex.1
viewed from any angel, it becomes clear that the applicant is not
entitled for the grant of bail. Hence, the order.

Order
Application (Exh.1) stands rejected.

Inform concerned PSO accordingly.
ADITEE
UDAY
KADAM
Nashik.
Date : 18.06.2022.

Digitally
signed by
ADITEE
UDAY
KADAM
Date:
2022.06.20
10:44:01 0600
(Aditee U. Kadam)
Additional Sessions Judge­2,
Nashik.

5
Cri.BailAppln.No.730/22­Ex.1