XYZ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/victim, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused.

(2.) A short objection that has been raised by the applicant/ victim is that respondent No.1/accused did not arraign her as a party to the bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, while seeking bail in C.R.No.470 of 2022 registered with Parola Police Station, Taluka Parola, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 376, 376(2)(j)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant/victim would submit that the victim has a right to oppose the bail application in the cases for the offences mentioned above. Since the order granting bail was passed in absence of the victim, it is liable to set aside.