RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the applicant in person through video conferencing, the learned A.P.P for respondent No.1/State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim.

(2.) The applicant has filed this successive bail application for bail in crime No.461 of 2021 registered with the Cantonment Police station, Aurangabad City, for the offences punishable under Ss. 354 , 323 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 9(M)(N), 10, 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

(3.) It seems from the arguments of the applicant in person that he has a grievance that the applications filed before the Sessions Courts were not decided in time, and since they were pending, the trial could not be progressed. It is admitted that after his rejection of the first bail application by this Court, he challenged the order in a Criminal Writ Petition. His Criminal Writ Petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was decided on 29/3/2023. In the said order, this Court has specifically observed that from the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he is trying to prolong the matter. His argument further reveals that he wanted to produce some evidence that is lying to him, like the material from his mobile handset. He would argue that he is not a hardened criminal. He wanted to conduct the case in person. He wanted to study the case laws to put his case. He also argued that there are also civil disputes pending against him. However, since he is behind bars, those are also proceeded ex-parte. Only the mother resides in his house, and she cannot look after the matters. He has been acquitted once before as offences were not proved against him; hence, if liberty is granted to him, he would be able to contest his matter correctly.