High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 931-BA-1522-24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1522 OF 2024SATISH BALU SONAWANEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. P. SonpawaleAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashok D. Raut ...CORAM :S. G. MEHARE, J.DATE:11-10-2024PER COURT :-1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondentNo.2.2.The applicant seeks bail in C.R.No.199 of 2023 for theoffences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(I),376(3), 313, 315, 316, 318 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of the Protection of Childrenfrom Sexual Offences Act, 2012.3.The prosecution has a case that the applicant and the otherco-accused were involved in the illegal termination of pregnancy.The victim was pregnant from one of the co-accused. Therefore,she was taken to one place. She was provided some pills. After 2 931-BA-1522-24.odttaking pills, she delivered a stillborn female child. The mother ofthe victim was also present there. Thereafter, she and her motherleft for her maternal uncle’s home. It has been alleged againstthat one Yogesh pressurized her not to stay there. Therefore,another co-accused took them to Pune. Her father had lodged theirmissing report. When they came to police station, the firstinformation report was registered.4.The applicant seeks bail on the ground that he was notnamed in the first information report and even in the firststatement of the victim and other witnesses was not presentthere. However, he being the accused in identical crimes, has beenarraigned as an accused afterthought. The material placed beforethe Court does not establish that the applicant had participated inthe present crime. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Beed,expressed an opinion that there are no ground to refuse bail due tohis antecedents, but there are many crimes registered against theapplicant before and after the present crime. Since he did notattend the trial already pending, a non bailable warrant issuedagainst him. The surety was called. He deposited the suretyamount.5.On the basis of this fact, the Court relying on the case ofMaulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. andanother, 2012 DGLS (SC) 35, recorded in correct finding that 3 931-BA-1522-24.odtthe possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, isone of the grounds to reject bail application.6.He submits that the applicant being entangled in theidentical crimes and specially in this crime, he was trying foranticipatory bail in the present crime. He had an apprehension ofhis arrest. Therefore, he sought an exemption from attending thetrial pending against him. However, the Court did not allow hisexemption. Therefore, it cannot be said that, he was deliberatelyavoiding the trial. These peculiar circumstances were notconsidered. There were substantial reasons for his absence fromthe trial. It was not the case that for his absence, the trial wasstalled. Therefore, the ratio of Maulana (supra) could not beapplied. Since this matter is pending, his bail in another crime inwhich he was granted bail was forfeited, has been kept pending fordecision, as the present application is pending. He submits thatsince there were antecedents to his discredit, the police arearresting him in every such identical crimes. In none of the crimes,he was named in the first information reports. Subsequently, thestatements are created and he is arraigned as an accused. Thevictim even did not identify him in the test identification parade.Considering the material against him, he deserve bail.7.The learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the offence isserious. The role attributed to the applicant has been prima facie 4 931-BA-1522-24.odtestablished. The son of one of the co-accused has stated that onthe day of the incident, the applicant had transferred Rs.10,000/-to his account for his mother. He states that the applicant gave hismother a few pills. The acts of the applicant are harmful to thesociety. He has repeatedly involved in the identical crimes.Therefore, he does not deserve bail.8.The learned counsel for the victim has vehemently arguedthat there is evidence that in a hut where the incident happened,two male were present and one of them was the applicant. Hesubmits that he has committed the offence even after this crime.So, he is harmful to the society and the pregnant woman may losethe life. The applicant is habitual offender. He also read thestatement of son of the one of the co-accused and vehementlyargued that the applicant had no reason to send Rs.10,000/- onthe same day of the incident. The victim and his family is poor.One of the co-accused was forcing them to leave for Pune and,accordingly, they went there. However, neither the learned A.P.P.nor the learned counsel for the victim has an explanation, why herfather lodged a missing report when he was travelling with themfor illegal termination of pregnancy. The learned counsel for thevictim again prayed for rejection of bail.9.The facts, as pointed by the respective learned counsels,reveal that the applicant was not named in the first information 5 931-BA-1522-24.odtreport. The facts of the case reveal that when they left for illegaltermination of pregnancy, the father of the victim was also there,but the reason is best known to him, why did not go with daughterand wife for termination of pregnancy. The police also did notsuspect, why the alleged report of missing was lodged and whythe victim and her mother went to Pune, why he had lodged amissing report is a mystery. The body of the still born child has notbeen recovered. The possibility of entangling him in the identicalcrime on the basis of his antecedents can also not be ruled out.How the accused seen present on the spot, the victim would nothave made of mistake identifying him. However, she did notidentify him when he face the test identification parade.10.The first information report reveals that there were no malemember in the hut. One of the ladies gave her pills. Afterconsuming pills, the child was born dead. Since he was indulgedin the identical crimes, his absence from the Court by seekingexemption application for anticipatory bail in this crime cannot besaid to be his deliberate absence from those trial. The learnedSpecial Judge (POCSO) has specifically expressed that there are nogrounds to refuse bail. The Court is of the view that in thecircumstances, the applicant deserve bail. Hence, the order:-ORDERi)The bail application is allowed. 6 931-BA-1522-24.odtii)Applicant – Satish Balu Sonawane be released on bail, onfurnishing PB and SB of Rs.50,000/-, with one solvent suretyof the like amount, in the above crime for the aforesaidoffences, on the conditions that,(a)He should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.(b)He should attend the trial on each effective date oftrial and avoid protracting the trial. (c)He should keep away from indulging in such identicalcrimes. ( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGErrd