Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.B.Appln.No.594/2022
CNR NO.MHNS010023572022
Ramdas Bhaskar Bhoye Vs. State.
Heard:
Ld. Adv. Mr. A. G. Patil for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S.S. Sangle for the State.
Perused the say filed by the victim.

1.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No. CCTNS. 44/2022
registered at Police Station, Abhona, Dist­Nashik for the offence
punishable under Section 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
26 year­old accused/applicant (who is married with two kids)
runs a flour­mill near the victim’s house. The victim is only 14
years old. He is in the habit of inappropriately touching girls
who go to his flour­mill. On the date of the incident, when the
victim was alone at home, the applicant came there, sweet­
talked her, raped her and impregnated her. However, she did
not disclose the incident to her parents out of fear. After a few
days, when she became pregnant due to the said sexual assault
and was getting morning sickness, she narrated the incident to
her parents.
2.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant has submitted that
material part of the investigation is over and charge­sheet is
about to be filed. This is a case of love­affair. He is ready to
abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court.
Therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping him behind
bars. In order to buttress his contentions further, he has relied
…2…

Cri.B.Appln.No.594/2022
Order Below Exh.1
on an unreported judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
dated 03/08/2015 in Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015 (Sunil
Mahadev Patil V/s. The State of Maharashtra) in which
accused was released on bail even though the victim was 15
years old.
3.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
application on the ground that there is prima­facie case against
the applicant. Offence is serious in nature and is punishable up
to imprisonment for life. Investigation is in progress and charge­
sheet is yet to be filed. If the applicant is released on bail, there
are chances of his tampering with prosecution witnesses.
4.

The victim has also vehemently opposed
the bail
application in her ‘say’.
5.

Perusal of the case­diary reveals prima­facie case
against the applicant. Investigation is in progress and charge­
sheet 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
well­founded.

Moreover, offence is serious in nature wherein victim is only 14
years old and accused is a married man with two children. There
is nothing about an alleged love­affair on record.

Even
assuming that it were so, even then, sexual assault on a minor
cannot be brushed under the carpet under the garb and guise of
a ‘love­affair’. If that is the view to be taken, the very purpose of
POCSO Act would be defeated. Consent of a minor is not valid
in the eyes of law. Moreover, in the present case there is not a
whisper about any alleged love­affair. It is ludicrous to believe
…3…

Cri.B.Appln.No.594/2022
Order Below Exh.1
that a married man with children and almost double the age of
the victim would have a ‘love­affair’ with a minor. The citation
in the case of Sunil (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
present case in as much as in the case of Sunil (supra), on the
face of it, the case was of love­affair wherein the victim was 15
years old, had eloped with the accused, got married to him and
lived together with him. There is no such case here wherein the
accused is married and has prima­facie exploited and assaulted
the victim. Also, unlike the case of Sunil (supra), the victim has
been impregnated by the accused. Moreover, in para 12 of the
said judgment, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has laid down
the criteria which needs to be kept in mind while deciding bail
applications in such cases. Application of the said criteria to the
facts of the present case would also not entitle the applicant to
be released on bail. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am
inclined to reject the bail application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
31/05/2022
Digitally signed
by MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.05.31
13:29:06
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge­2 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.