Nitin Damodar Dhaberao v. State ofMaharashtra and another). ii)Criminal Bail application No
Facts
ba1345.25-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 128 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2025Akshay Laxman BachateVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra And Another...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhinay D. Khot APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S.B. Narwade Advocate for respondent No.2: Miss. Mayur S. Hange ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2025. PER COURT :- 1.This is an application for granting bail under section 439 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with crime No.792 of 2024 registered with Gangakhed police station, DistrictParbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96,64(1), 65(1), 87 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections4, 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAct, 2012. 2.The informant, who is father of the prosecutrix, averred in thereport that his 17 years old daughter had left the house on26.12.2024 in the evening and thereafter, she was found with theapplicant at Pune. The applicant was accordingly arrested on11.04.2025 i.e. after four months. Therefore, the report is lodged ba1345.25-2- against the applicant. 3.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that it is a caseof love affair. Entire charge sheet does not disclose that the applicanthas forced the prosecutrix for sexual relationship. He submitted thatconsidering the law laid down in the following authorities, theapplicant deserves to be released on bail. i)Criminal application (BA) No.718 of 2023, (Nagpur Bench)decided on 05.01.2025 (Nitin Damodar Dhaberao vs. State ofMaharashtra and another). ii)Criminal Bail application No. 3899 of 2024 (Principal Seat atBombay) decided on 17.2.2025 (Vijay Chand Dubey vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another).Iii)Bail application No. 877 of 2025 (Aurangabad Bench) decidedon 14.08.2025 (Shubham Dilip Awasarmal vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another) 4.Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State and learned advocateappointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2-victim havestrongly opposed the application and submitted that the applicant isbooked for serious crime of commission of rape on a child of 17years old. They both are residents of the same village and if theapplicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the prosecutrix and ba1345.25-3- her family members and tamper with the evidence. Considering theserious nature of the offence, it is lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 5.It would be relevant to refer the authorities cited by the learnedadvocate for the applicant. In the case of Nitin Damodar Dhaberaovs. State of Maharashtra and another, (supra), in para 6, thisCourt observed as under:- “6.….. As far as merit is concerned, admittedly victim is of 13 years ofage and her consent is not relevant. However, the statements which arerecorded by the investigation officer shows that victim has left her house ather own accord on the pretext of bringing the book from friend and notreturned back at home. She also joined the company of the presentapplicant and also admitted her love relationship with the present applicantin her statement. …..In the case of Vijay Chand Dubey vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another (supra) in para Nos. 9 and 10, this Courtobserved as under:- “9.Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is seen thatvictim has left her parents' house without informing the parents andhas stayed with Applicant for 3 days and 3 nights as also she hasconfessed that she was in love with the Applicant and travelledalongwith him to different places and had a consensual encounter.
Legal Reasoning
ba1345.25-4- 10.It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail Applicationhas to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertainwhether the Accused is likely to appear before the Court for trial.There are other broad parameters also like gravity of offence,likelihood of Accused repeating the offence while on bail, whetherhe would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, hisantecedents are required to be considered in such cases.”In the case of Shubham Dilip Awasarmal vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another (supra) in para Nos. 12 and 13, thisCourt observed as under:-“12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SanjayChandra supra has primarily held that ball should be the ruleand during pendency of the trial the liberty should not becurtailed unless there are circumstances suggestive ofapplicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justiceor creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offencesor intimidating the witnesses. Considering the gravity of theoffence involved is likely to induce the accused to avoid thecourse of justice, so also heinousness of the crime. Whiledealing with the ball, the court should exercise judicialdiscretion based on well settled principles of law and theconcern of the court should be to secure the presence of theapplicant, who is seeking bail. Thus, the court may take intoconsideration antecedents of the applicant to find whether hehas bad record particularly the record which suggests that heis likely to commit serious offence while on bail.13. Having considering the law on the subject of grant of bailas above, although the age of consent of minor is immaterial ba1345.25-5- for the offence under POSCO Act, the grant of bail would beat the discretion of the Court to be exercised on well settledprinciples as noted above. Exercise of the discretionarypower of the Court is not an uncontrolled power. The Courtmay exercise the power more liberally when investigation inthe matter is complete and that the possibility of the applicantfrom fleeing from justice is remote, when he has noantecedents and he may not possibly interfere with thejustice.”6. Perused the charge sheet, particularly the report and thestatements of witnesses. The applicant and the prosecutrix resided atPune for two days. The prosecutrix is 17 years of old. It is the caseof love affair between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Theapplicant has roots in the society. He will not flee away from trial.The trial will take a long period. Considering the law laid down in theaforesaid authorities, the application deserves to be allowed oncertain conditions:- Hence, the following order. O R D E RI.Application is allowed.II.The applicant in connection with crime No. 792 of 2024registered with Gangakhed police station, District Parbhani, forthe offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(1),65(1), 87 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections4, 8, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual ba1345.25-6- Offences Act, 2012, be released on bail on furnishing personalbond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount onfollowing conditions:- a)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecutionevidence and shall not pressurize the witnesses, in anymanner. b)The applicant shall not enter in the village WadgaonStation, Tq. Sonpeth, district Parbhani, till conclusion oftrial. 7.Since Miss. Hange, learned advocate is appointed toprosecute the cause of the respondent No.2, her fees be paid as perthe schedule of fees maintained by the High Court Legal Services,Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/