NILESH SURYAKANT NETAKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Haldankar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Mansukhani, learned Counsel appointed to represent the Respondent No.2.

(2.) This regular Bail Application is preferred under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") seeking that Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.275 of 2021 dtd. 22/12/2021 registered with the Haveli Police Station, Pune. The said FIR has been lodged alleging commission of the offence punishable under Ss. 377 and 506(II) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and under Ss. 3, 4, 5(g), 6, 7, 8, 9(g), 10, 11(ii), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act") and Sec. 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(3.) It is the main contention of Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant was merely present when the incident took place and he has not played any role in the incident in question. He further submits that the Applicant has been arrested on 22/12/2021 and till date there is no progress in the trial and therefore, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on the ground of long incarceration.