ANIL BABAN KHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the order dated 21st June 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, thereby rejecting his application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.I-216 of 2019 registered with Kalyan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code , under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act for the sake of brevity) as well as under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. She argued that averments in the First Information Report (FIR) that the appellant/accused had given a cell phone to the victim female child in the year 2017 is per se false as that cell phone was ordered in the year 2018. For that purpose, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused sought to rely on print of some message with title Jadhav Sir. It is further argued that the victim female child is more than 15 years of age. Her FIR shows her date of birth as 13 th March 2000 whereas other documents are giving different dates of birth. It is also argued that the incident did not take place in the year 2017. By drawing my attention to the FIR, it is argued that in the meeting dated 8 th March 2019, the appellant/accused was not present. With this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) The learned APP opposed the appeal by contending that during the course of investigation, date of birth of the victim female child is ascertained from the school record and her School Leaving Certificate shows her date of birth as 13th March 2001. Even if the date of birth is assumed to be 13 th March 2000, as stated in the FIR, still the victim female child was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.