he Bombay High Court, in a recent decision, refused bail to an individual accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old disabled minor. The court took note of the fact that the accused had 11 additional cases of robbery filed against him.

''There are a total of 11 cases lodged against the applicant under Section 393 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the said cases, the applicant was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail after a few days,” the order states.

The bench, headed by Justice Madhav Jamdar, considered a bail application submitted by Rajendra Dinkar Bagade. Bagade faces charges under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 (2) (j) (l) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Walchandnagar Police Station in Pune registered the FIR based on the complaint filed by the victim's mother.

Rajendra Dinkar Bagade was arrested on September 15, 2022, in connection with the POCSO case. Notably, he was already in custody for another FIR filed against him when he was apprehended in this instance.

The allegations against Bagade involve coercing the physically disabled victim, along with another individual, by threatening to send her parents to jail. This alleged intimidation was used to force the victim into engaging in sexual intercourse.

The mother of the victim became aware of the alleged series of incidents on September 9, 2022. These incidents reportedly commenced around Diwali 2021, approximately in October–November 2021.

The bench observed that the sonography report from September 14, 2022, indicated the presence of a single live intrauterine fetus with an average gestational age of 26 weeks. Despite this, the bench, in refusing bail to the applicant, emphasized the gravity of the offense, deeming it extremely serious.

“The offence is extremely serious in nature. Although, as per the F.I.R., the informant, i.e., the mother of the victim, came to know about the same on 9th September 2022, the incident has occurred much earlier,” the order states.

Case title: Rajendra Dinkar Bagade vs State of Maharashtra