Bombay High Court
Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 January, 2020
Author: Sandeep. K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep. K. Shinde
903.BA-2632-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2632 OF 2019
Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
...
Ms. Nazneen Khatri i/by Adil Khatri,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Avinash Khamkhedkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Manoj Chalke, P.I., Kurar Police Station.
...
CORAM : SANDEEP. K. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 09th JANUARY, 2020.
P.C.
Heard.
1. It is an application under Section 439 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of
Madras AIR 1965 942. The Apex Court has held thus :
"Where a minor girl alleged to be taken away by the
Najeeb 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::
903.BA-2632-2019.doc
accused person, had left her father's protection
knowing and having capacity to know the full import of
what she was doing and voluntarily joined the accused,
it could not be said that the accused had taken her away
from the keeping of her lawful guardian within the
meaning of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC" for short). Something more had to be done in a
case of that kind, such as an inducement held out by the
accused person or an active participation by him in the
formation of the intention either immediately prior to
the minor leaving her father protection or at some
earlier stage."
3. In the case in hand, the victim was 14 years
and 11 months old on the date of incident; whereas the
applicant was 25 years old. It appears from the
victim's statement that, on 18.04.2019 at 01:00 am.,
she had left her parents' house secretly with her
belongings to go to the accused and thereafter, they
had traveled from one place to another, right from
Mahableshwar to Bhusawal and thereafter to Delhi. Her
Najeeb 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::
903.BA-2632-2019.doc
statement shows that on 22.04.2019, she left with the
complainant for two days, to go to Gajipur, UP, the
village of the applicant, where she was persuaded by
the relative of the applicant to return back to home
and thereafter, both had returned to Mumbai. The said
description of facts do not even remotely suggest that
the applicant had ever induced and/or forced the
victim to leave her parents' house. Thus, prima facie,
the ratio laid down in the S. Varadarajan's case
(supra) is applicable to the case in hand.
4. So far as the offences punishable under
Section 4, 6, 8 of POCSO Act (special law)is concerned,
it may be stated that the provisions of this law are,
though, stringent in nature, would not deter the Court
to grant or refuse bail in order to secure the ends
of justice. The conduct of the victim is indicative
of the fact that she had left the home of
her parents by her own will and that she had
surrendered to the physical desires of the applicant
out of her love and affection for him. It is not the
Najeeb 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::
903.BA-2632-2019.doc
case of the prosecution that the applicant had
promised to marry her. Additionally, it is also not a
case where under the misconception of the fact, she had
served herself to the desire of the applicant for
physical relations. No doubt, that the applicant,
under the preview of POCSO Act, is a minor, however,
the facts of the present case indicate that she had
sufficient knowledge and capacity to know full import
of what she was doing and had only thereafter
voluntarily joined the complainant.
5. Thus, taking into consideration the peculiar
facts of the case, the present application is allowed.
6. The applicant has been in custody since April
2018. The trial is not likely to commence in the near
future. It is submitted that the applicant's presence
can be secured by imposing conditions.
7. It is further submitted that applicant was not
living in the vicinity of the victim at the time of the
Najeeb 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::
903.BA-2632-2019.doc
occurrence of the alleged incident.
8. In furtherance of the reasons stated herein
above, the application is allowed and hence the
following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in Crime no.155 of 2019 registered with Kurar Police Station, on executing P.R. Bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The applicant shall not live in the vicinity of the victim until the conclusion of trial, the trial is expedited;
(ii) The applicant shall furnish the particulars of his residential address as well as permanent address and mobile number details to the investigating officer within seven days from the Najeeb 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::
903.BA-2632-2019.doc date of his release on bail;
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
9. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed off.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and the same shall not in any way influence the trial in other proceedings.
11. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SANDEEP. K. SHINDE, J.) Najeeb 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2020 00:56:49 :::