High Court
Legal Reasoning
4927 BA.180.2023.odtwas assaulted after the incident, which shows his subsequent conduct.7The report lodged by this applicant shows that after theincident, he was beaten by the informant and her relatives. That is aprima-facie material that the informant and her relatives haveassaulted the applicant in the anger. There is no reason to makeallegations against the applicant about the alleged incident by aninnocent child of 9 years old. This shows that our girl children are notsafe anywhere. There is prima-facie material against the applicantand he is booked for serious crime. 8In the facts and circumstances of the present case, itwould be proper to rely upon the following two authorities:-I)In Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andanother, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 559, the HonourableSupreme Court in paragraph 22 held as under:“22.As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of thisCourt in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010)14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, it is well-settled thatthe factors to be borne in mind while considering anapplication for bail are:-(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonableground to believe that the accused had committedthe offence;(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation; 5927 BA.180.2023.odt(iii)severity of the punishment in the event ofconviction;(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, ifreleased on bail;(v)character, behaviour, means, position and standingof the accused;(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;(vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses beinginfluenced; and(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted bygrant of bail.”II) In Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan andanother, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 684, the HonourableSupreme Court in paragraph 6 held as under:“6.….. We are constrained to observe that JusticeD. S. Bajpai refused to grant the prayer and proceeded togrant bail simply on the ground that the liberty of a citizenwas involved which is the case in every criminal case moreparticularly in a murder case where a citizen who let alonelosing liberty has lost his very life. Another ground forgranting bail was that trial was delayed, therefore theaccused was entitled to bail. This also cannot be helped if alitigant is encouraged to make half a dozen applications onthe same point without any new factor having arisen after thefirst was rejected. Had the learned Judge granted time to thecomplainant for filing counter-affidavit, correct facts wouldhave been placed before the court and it could have beenpointed out that apart from the inherent danger of tamperingwith or intimidating witnesses and aborting the case, therewas also the danger to the life of the main witnesses or to thelife of the accused being endangered as experience of life 6927 BA.180.2023.odthas shown to the members of the profession and thejudiciary, and in that event, the learned Judge would havebeen in a better position to ascertain facts to act judiciously.No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguardedby court, nonetheless when a person is accused of a seriousoffence like murder and his successive bail applications arerejected on merit there being prima facie material, theprosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court.Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which isadministered keeping in mind the interests of the accused,the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feelhelpless and believe that there is no justice in the world asalso the collective interest of the community so that partiesdo not lose faith in the institution and indulge in privateretribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by theconcept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case.”9Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act is applicable, whichprovides severe punishment. As per the amendment it providesrigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twentyyears, which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall meanimprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shallalso be liable to fine, or with death. As per Section 18 of the POCSOAct i.e. punishment for attempt to commit any offence, one-half of theimprisonment for life or, one-half of the longest term of imprisonmentprovided for that offence or with fine or with both, is prescribed. 10It is also not the case of the prosecution that there wasejaculation and therefore, medical evidence of semen is necessary. Atthis stage, meticulous consideration of evidence is not expected. 7927 BA.180.2023.odtHowever, considering the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 ofthe POCSO Act, which saddles burden on the accused to prove hisinnocence regarding culpable mental state. Thus, there is prima-facieserious case against the applicant to which presumptions areattracting. Therefore, considering the object of the POCSO Act andthe facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is certainly notentitled for bail, in view of the ratio and guidelines laid down in theabove case laws (cited supra). The bail application, therefore,deserves to be rejected. It is rejected. 11The learned counsel for applicant submits that the trialmay be expedited. 12This Court has called reports from each of the District andSessions Court within the jurisdiction of this Court. The report showsthat at Sangamner, three cases are expedited by this Court.Considering this aspect, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trialas early as possible, within one year. The Trial Court shall decide thecase by keeping in mind that it is sessions case. Needless to mentionthat sessions means once it is started, it shall not be stopped. Itmeans that the Trial Court shall conduct the case by keeping datesaccordingly without adjourning it like civil suit. 8927 BA.180.2023.odt13It is made clear that all these observations are prima-faciein nature for the purpose of deciding the present bail application onlyand the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same whileconcluding the trial. 14The fees of the appointed counsel be paid through theHigh Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad as per Rulesand schedule. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga
Arguments
1927 BA.180.2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.927 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1803 OF 2023RAMESH JAYRAM SANGALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade.APP for Respondent/State : Mr. Satish A. Gaikwad.Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sharad Shinde. (Appointed)....CORAM :SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE :29th February, 2024. P.C.:1Heard. 2This is an application, under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail in connection withCrime No.292 of 2023, registered at Sangamner Taluka Police Station,District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections376AB, 376 (2) (f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(m)(n), 6, 8, 9(m)(n), 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act (for short “POCSO Act”). 3It is averred in the report by the mother of 9 years victimgirl child that on 15th May, 2023 at about 07:30 pm, the youngsterswere dancing at the time of Haldi Sabha of one marriage. Her 2927 BA.180.2023.odtdaughter was playing there. After the dinner, her daughter went forurination, but she did not return. At about 10.30 pm, she came withthis applicant, who is the nephew of sister-in-law of the informant. Thattime, her daughter was found frightened and the applicant immediatelywent away. She saw that her daughter was frightened. Her sister-in-law and her husband inquired with the victim child as to whathappened. That time, she told that the applicant said her to come tovisit her grandmother. He took her to a house but there she saw thatone old aged person was sleeping. Then he took her to oneagricultural farm in the dark. There he caught hold her hands andstarted kissing her. Thereafter, he sat down and removed hisunderwear and the underwear of victim child and said her that “थोडासा ”करंट लागु दे”लागु दे”दे”. Then the applicant inserted his private part in the privatepart of the victim child. She suffered. That time, the applicant said her,after marriage her husband will do this activity, her parents were alsodoing the same, therefore, she is begotten. The applicant also askedthe victim child whether she is liking it and he also pressed her breast.Therefore, the report was lodged on second day. 4The learned counsel for applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime as there was earlier enmitybetween the parties. He pointed out that the applicant was assaultedand beaten by the parents of the victim child. Therefore, he lodged 3927 BA.180.2023.odtreport on 16th May, 2023. Crime No.293 of 2023 was registeredagainst the informant and others. The learned counsel for applicantsubmitted that now the charge-sheet is filed, the custodial interrogationof the applicant is not required. The applicant is residing at Sonewadi,Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar and therefore, he will notpressurize the prosecution witnesses. It is lastly prayed to allow theapplication. 5The learned APP for the State and the learned appointedcounsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application andpointed out the statements of witnesses as well as the report ofmedical examination of the victim child. The opinion is reserved till theCA report is received. However, there was contused lacerated wound(CLW) over the forehead of the prosecutrix and CLW over the head. Itis submitted that the applicant is booked for serious crime of rape ongirl child, which is an aggravated form of sexual assault as defined inthe POCSO Act. It is heinous crime. Considering his age, there ispossibility of pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it islastly prayed to reject the application. 6Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and thestatements of witnesses. The statements of witnesses, particularly,victim child is in consonance with the prosecution case. The applicant