Suresh Supdu Kapadnis vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1670 Bom

                                       1          Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

mnm

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2017

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis                                   ...Appellant
Age: 43 years, Occ: service,
R/of: Flat No.4, Ganga-Parwati Tower,
Akshay Co-op. Hsg. Society,
Shivaji Nagar, Sinnar, 
Tal: Sinnar, Dist: Nashik.
      Vs.
The State of Maharashtra                                ...Respondent
(At the instance of the P.I. -
Wavi Police Station, Nashik)

Mr. Aniket U. Nikam, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P. for the State

                                    CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                                M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED :12TH APRIL, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant original accused and

learned A.P. P. for the State.

2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 30 th January,

2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Nasik in

2 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

Criminal Mis. (Bail) Application No.31 of 2017 preferred by the

Appellant seeking anticipatory bail. By the said order the

application for anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

3. The Complainant was working as a Superintendent in the

Educational Institution where the Appellant was working as the

Principal. The Complainant has stated about separate incidents of

rape committed on her by the Appellant. The incidents took place

on 31st August, 2015, 16th September, 2015, 6th December 2015

and 13th December, 2015. She has stated in detail about the

incidents of rape.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that though

the last incident of rape is dated 13 th December, 2015 the F.I.R. was

lodged on 3rd January, 2017, which shows that it was lodged

belatedly by the Complainant by way of afterthought. He further

submitted that there were complaints regarding the behaviour of

the Complainant with students as well as on other facts. The

Appellant had written many letters to the Complainant in relation

to these complaints. These complaints were even prior to the first

3 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

incident of rape. He further submitted that the Complainant was

terminated on 15th December, 2016 and as a counterblast the

Complainant has lodged this F.I.R. against the Appellant. As far as

this contention is concerned it is the defence of the Appellant and

he would have to prove it at the time of trial. These letters are not

part of the investigation papers. At this stage on reading the F.I.R.

it clearly shows that the Appellant committed rape on the

complainant. It appears that after every incident of rape the

Complainant kept quiet because the Appellant used to threaten her

that she should keep quiet and not tell any one otherwise she will

loose her job. It appears that on account of this threat of loosing

job the Complainant kept quiet. However, once, she was removed

from the job she was no longer under threat of losing job, hence,

she lodged F.I.R.

5. As stated earlier the F.I.R. clearly shows that the Appellant

committed rape on the Complainant. In the F.I.R., the Complainant

has stated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe whereas the accused

belongs to Maratha caste, hence the Scheduled Caste Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will be attracted. In view

4 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

of the allegations in the F.I.R. Section 18 of the Act would come into

play and hence anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

6. We are also of the opinion that the Investigating Agency

should be given a fair chance to investigate which may not be

possible if the Appellant is granted anticipatory bail.

7. In view of the above facts we are not inclined to grant

Anticipatory bail. Appeal is dismissed.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)