Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.B.Appln.No.387/2022 CNR NO.MHNS010012972022

Vaibhav Ashok Gorane Vs. State.

Heard:

Ld. Adv. Mr. S. B. Shejwal for the applicant.

Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S.S. Sangle for the State.

I. O. present.

Perused the say filed by the complainant/victim.

1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.48/2022 registered at Police Station, Wavi, Dist­Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the POCSO, 2012. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the applicant (accused No. 1) kidnapped the 16 year­old minor victim along with accused No. 2, raped her and impregnated her due to which she had to get an abortion done.

2. Ld. Advocate for the applicant has submitted that initially the offence was registered only under Section 363 of the I.P.C. Sections 366A & 376 of the I.P.C. & Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came to be added subsequently. There was a love­affair between the applicant and the victim and she had accompanied the accused of her own free will, volition and accord. The entire act was consensual and the victim was well­aware of the consequences of her actions. Applicant is behind bars since the past one month. 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.

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 chargesheet is yet to be filed. DNA report is awaited. If the applicant is released on bail, there are chances of his tampering with prosecution witnesses.

4.The complainant (victim) is present before the Court and has filed his ‘say’ strongly opposing the bail application. The victim was admitted to Civil Hospital, Nashik for six days for her abortion.

5.Perusal of the case­diary reveals prima­facie case against the applicant. Investigation is in progress and chargesheet 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. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am not inclined to allow the application at this stage.

ORDER

Application is hereby rejected.

Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2022.04.06 12:39:50 +0530 Nashik
Mridula Bhatia 06/04/2022 District Judge­ 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.