appln 2.17 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.2 OF 2017
Sau. Sushma W/o Sunil Rathi,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o Dharyasheel Pundlikrao Kurhekar,
Priya Township, Shegaon-Rahatgaon Road,
Amravati. ..... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.P.S.Jalgaon Jamod,
Tahsil-Jalgaon Jamod,District-Buldhana.
2. Sunil S/o Rancholddas Rathi,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation-Business,
3. Anil S/o Rancholddas Rathi,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Business,
4. Raju S/o Rancholddas Rathi,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation-Business,
Non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 are resident of
Jalgaon Jamod,Tahsil-Jalgaon Jamod,
District-Buldhana. ...NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.V.Navlani, advocate for the applicant.
Miss T.H.Udeshi,A.P.P. for State.
Shri S.G.Joshi,advocate for non-applicant nos. 2 to 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:24 :::
appln 2.17 2
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JULY 5,2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned Special Judge and A.S.J.Khamgaon has not exercised discretion in favour of the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 properly by granting them anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 376(g),354(A),504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act and Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. The complaint is lodged by mother victim. The mother is also one of the victims. As per the report, mother took divorce from her first husband and she performed her second marriage with non-applicant no.2 on 17/3/2012. The minor victim is daughter born to mother from her first husband. According to prosecution, she is aged about 15 years.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:24 ::: appln 2.17 3
4. As per submission of learned counsel for the applicant though for first two years there was no illtreatment whatsoever in nature either to the complainant or to her minor daughter from non-applicant nos. 2 to 4, however subsequently merely because they belong to scheduled caste the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 started harassment to them. It is also alleged that non-applicant nos. 3 and 4 committed rape on mother prosecutrix and non- applicant no.2 outraged modesty of the minor victim on 1/3/2015. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that minor victim was raped either by non-applicant no.2 or non-applicant nos. 3 and 4.
5. It is not in dispute that wife and her minor daughter are residing separately from non-applicant no.2 and as per the submissions of learned counsel for applicant the matrimonial dispute in between them is going on.
6. Though the incident is of dated 1/3/2015 ,FIR about the said incident is lodged on 14/11/2016. This there is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. The only reason according to learned counsel for applicant for lodging F.I.R. delay is that they ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:24 ::: appln 2.17 4 were under threats from the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4. However, learned Judge of the Court below while considering this aspect has rightly noticed that from 1/3/2015 the first informant was residing separately and there is no iota of material placed on record to show that she was under any type of threat. Further, learned Judge observed in his order that the complaint is silent in respect of the date when the non-applicant nos. 3 and 4 committed sexual assault on mother.
7. Merely because the offence is of serious nature that does not bar from granting anticipatory bail especially when it is noticed by the Court that F.I.R. is filed after lapse of time after 1 and ½ years and for that no explanation is coming on record. Immediate filing of the F.I.R. rules out embellishment and false implication. However, when the F.I.R. is lodged after 1 and ½ year the possibility of the false implication is not completed ruled out especially when there is matrimonial discord between the non- applicant no.2 and complainant. The aforesaid aspects were rightly considered in my view by the learned Judge of the Court below while releasing the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 on anticipatory bail. Further, it is not the case of the present ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:24 ::: appln 2.17 5 applicant that the conditions those were imposed upon the non- applicant nos. 2 to 4 are breached by them. In that view of the matter, it is not the case wherein Court should exercise its power to upset the order granting anticipatory bail in favour of the non- applicant nos. 2 to 4. Hence, application is rejected.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGE kitey ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:24 :::