Bombay High Court
Sonaji S/O Haribhai Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 29 February, 2016
Bench: M.T. Joshi
1 WP1525.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1525 OF 2015
1. Saraswati w/o Rambhau Jadhav,
Age : 37 years, Occu. Govt. Servant,
R/o. Belegaon Phata, Behind Hotel Chaitanya,
In front of Kakasaheb Mhaske College,
Ahmednagar.
2. Pallavi W/o. Anil Gaikwad,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed. ig .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
District Beed.
3. The Majalgaon Police Station,
Through its P.I. .. Respondents
........
Mr S. R. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr R. B. Bagul, APP for respondent/State
.......
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2015
1. Sonaji S/o Haribhau Gaikwad,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:09:16 :::
2 WP1525.2015
2. Anil S/o. Ramkisan Gaikwad,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed.
3. Kishor S/o. Vasant Raut,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Jai Bhavani Chowk, Bolegaon Phata,
Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
District Beed.
3. The Majalgaon Police Station,
Through its P.I. .. Respondents
........
Mr S. R. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr R. B. Bagul, APP for respondent/State
.......
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1527 OF 2015
1. Soni W/o. Manoj Gulaskar,
Age : 37 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o. Jai Bhavani Chowk, Bolegaon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Manoj S/o. Appa Gaulaskar,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Jai Bhavani Chowk, Bolegaon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
.. Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:09:16 :::
3 WP1525.2015
2. The Commissioner of Police,
District Beed.
3. The Majalgaon Police Station,
Through its P.I. .. Respondents
........
Mr S. R. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr R. B. Bagul, APP for respondent/State
.......
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 29/02/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the
application filed by the present petitioners seeking
discharge from the Sessions Case No. 2/2014, by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist.
Beed, the petitioners have filed the present writ
petitions.
3. The prosecution case in nutshell would show
that, a 16 year old victim was raped and Crime No. 139
of 2013 came to be registered at Majalgaon Police
Station, Dist. Beed, against three accused including the
present petitioners for the offences punishable under
4 WP1525.2015
Sections 376(1), 363, 366(A), read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(A)/4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. Hearing from both the sides as well as case
papers would show that, a 16 year old victim was enticed
by the child in conflict with the law - Shubham. He
thereafter took her to various places and raped her.
Thereafter, initially on the basis of F.I.R. filed by
the complainant/father, the offence came to be
registered against Shubham. After recovery of the
victim i.e. daughter, the present petitioners as well as
the other accused are arrayed.
5. The material statements are of the
complainant/father and his alleged 16 year old
daughter/victim. If both the statements as well as the
supplementary statements of the witnesses are
appreciated, it would go to show that petitioner No. 2 -
Pallavi in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2015 was
allegedly conduit between the victim and said Shubham.
She had brought a chit from Shubham to the victim, which
was read and torn by the victim. As regards petitioner
No. 1 - Saraswati, the mother of Shubham in Criminal
5 WP1525.2015
Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2015, the statement of the
victim would show that the mother of Shubham used to
threaten her. Similar is the case regarding petitioner
No. 1 - Sonaji and petitioner No. 2 - Anil in Criminal
Writ petition No. 1526 of 2015. In the circumstances,
since there being material against them, at this stage
they cannot be discharged from the said case.
6. So far as petitioner No. 3 - Kishor in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1526 of 2015 and the petitioners in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1527 of 2015 namely; Soni and
Manoj are concerned, there is no material to show any
admissible evidence against them. In that view of the
matter, the following order.
ORDER
(1) The present writ petitions as regards
petitioners namely; Saraswati and Pallavi in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1525 of 2015 and
Petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely; Sonaji and Anil
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1526 of 2015 are
hereby dismissed.
6 WP1525.2015
(2) Petitioner No. 3 - Kishor in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1526 of 2015 and petitioners
namely; Soni and Manoj in Criminal Writ
petition No. 1527 of 2015 are discharged from
the trial.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[M.T. JOSHI]
sgp
ig JUDGE
