Serious allegations of gang rape against minors necessitate denial of bail, emphasizing prima facie evidence of active involvement and potential witness tampering, aligning with the parameters set for bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

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 Section 4 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) seeking that Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.275 of 2021 dated 22^nd December 2021 registered with the Haveli Police Station, Pune. The said FIR has been lodged alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 3 77 and 506(II) read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”) and under Sections 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 Section 6 7-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^nd December 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.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Haldankar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Mansukhani, learned Counsel appointed to represent the Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the Bail Application. Both of them submitted that the material on record shows that the Applicant has played major role in the commission of crime and as the offence is very serious and heinous the Applicant be not enlarged on bail. Both of them submitted that as the victims, other witnesses and the accused are staying in the same vicinity, there is very high possibility of accused pressurizing the witnesses and therefore, the Applicant be not enlarged on bail.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is a second Bail Application and the first Bail Application bearing Bail Application No.3551 of 2023 was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 11^th March 2024 passed by this Court. In the said order dated 11^th March 2024, it has been specifically observed that as this Court was not inclined to grant bail, the Applicant has withdrawn the Bail Application. Thus, in effect the first Bail Application has been dismissed on merits. However, as contentions are raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant even on merits the same are considered.

6. Before considering the merits, it is required to set out parameters inter alia required to be taken into consideration by the Court while considering prayer for grant of bail. The said parameters are as follows :-

a) Nature and gravity of circumstances in which offence was committed;

b) Position and status of accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses;

c) Likelihood of accused fleeing from justice;

d) Likelihood of accused tampering with witnesses; e) History of the case as well as of its investigation.

It is also a settled legal position that the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence at the stage of consideration of Bail Application.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, [(2002) 3 SCC 598] has held as follows :

“4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to