The Bombay High Court dismissed an application seeking anticipatory bail in an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. The Court observed that the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted just because there is a delay of two days in lodging the report.
Brief Facts:
The applicant was working at the Vada Pav stall of the complainant. The complainant was in need of groceries for her vada pav stall but she was not able to go to market as there were a lot of customers at her stall. The applicant, therefore, said to her that he would go to the market and bring the required grocery.
It is alleged that the present applicant told the complainant to send her daughter (victim) with him to bring groceries. It is alleged that when the applicant and the victim came back, the victim disclosed that the present applicant did wrong thing with her i.e., four times pressed her breast.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Counsel for the Applicant contended that there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. He argued that a false complaint came to be lodged as the dispute arose between the complainant and the applicant on account of sharing of profit. Nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the present applicant and therefore custodial interrogation of the present application is not necessary. Thus, the counsel argued, the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application and contended that the applicant is involved in a serious case of sexual assault and that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that in a case like that of outraging the modesty of a minor girl or sexual assault, there is always reluctance to go to the police station and to lodge the report. The case of the prosecution, therefore, cannot be doubted just because there is a delay of two days in lodging the report. Prima facie, the defense of the applicant that a false report came to be lodged against him does not appear to be probable.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, rejecting the anticipatory bail application, held that the defense of the applicant does not appear to be probable.
Case Title: Ramkrshna S. Kumbhar v The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice N.R. Borkar
Case no.: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3000 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Satyavrat Joshi and Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Yurvraj R. Dhole and Mr. P.H. Gaikwad-Patil, APP
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
