Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 15, 2024 – Avinash Anna Bansode, a 44-year-old labourer from Navi Mumbai, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a 2012 rape and kidnapping case registered at the Trombay Police Station. Bansode was charged under sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) read with section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The case, C.R. No. 101/2012, involves allegations that the victim was kidnapped and forcibly married to a co-accused, Pappu, when she was a minor. The FIR was lodged on May 25, 2012, after the victim went missing on May 19, 2012, and later returned with another co-accused, Deepali Kale, revealing her marriage to Pappu.

Arguments Presented:

Bansode, through his advocate, Arvind Jaiswar, argued that his role was limited to signing as a witness on the marriage declaration form between the victim and co-accused Pappu. He emphasized that the victim had willingly married Pappu and that two other co-accused, Pappu and Deepali, had already been granted bail. He also highlighted that Bansode was arrested on February 6, 2024, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and there were no criminal antecedents against him. Bansode, a permanent resident of Navi Mumbai, was willing to abide by all court-imposed conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl. P.P.) Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, and the victim, opposed the bail application. They argued that the victim was a minor at the time of the marriage and was forcibly married to Pappu by Deepali and Bansode. They cited the victim’s statement recorded on March 7, 2024, where she reiterated these allegations. They expressed concerns that Bansode’s release could lead to witness tampering, threats to the complainant, and repetition of the crime.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, after reviewing the FIR and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to Bansode. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but focused on Bansode’s limited role, the advanced stage of the investigation (charge-sheet filed), and the fact that the co-accused were already on bail.

The court noted that Bansode’s role, as per the charge-sheet, was confined to signing as a witness on the marriage declaration form. The court also considered the absence of any criminal antecedents against Bansode and his status as a permanent resident of Navi Mumbai.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Avinash Anna Bansode on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• No Tampering with Evidence: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend Trombay Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer on written notice until the conclusion of the trial.
• No Future Offenses: He must not commit any offense in the future.
• No Contact with Complainant/Witnesses: He must not contact the complainant, witnesses, and their family members directly or indirectly by any means until the conclusion of the trial.
• No Social Media Posts: He must not upload any videos or photographs of the complainant on social media.
• Travel Restrictions: He must not leave India without the court’s permission.
• Address and Contact Details: He must furnish his permanent and temporary address, if any, and his contact details to the concerned police station.
• Address Change Notification: He must not change his residential address without prior intimation to the Investigation Officer and the concerned court.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition would entail cancellation of bail.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the specific role of an accused, the stage of the investigation, and the parity with co-accused when granting bail. By imposing stringent conditions, the court aimed to balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect the complainant and ensure a fair trial. The decision also shows that even in serious cases, courts will consider the specific facts and circumstances of each individual accused.