Bombay High Court
Father Jacob Joseph Dbritto vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 April, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
3. cri apeal 314-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 314 OF 2017
Father Jacob Joseph D'Britto .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate
a/w Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi i/by
Mr. Shivaji K. Farakate Advocate for the Appellant
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 25, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
APP for the State.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the
order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Palghar in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 213/2016
wherein the appellant had sought anticipatory bail in C.R.
No. I-153/2016 of Talasari Police Station. By order dated
23.12.2016, the application of the appellant for anticipatory
bail came to be rejected.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:25:30 :::
3. cri apeal 314-17.doc
3. The FIR was lodged on 5.12.2016 by Ms. Diksha
Gaikwad who was a teacher in Adivasi Vidyamandir at
Talasari. The appellant was Director of the said school. In
the said FIR, she has stated that on 9.10.2015 at about 3.05
p.m., two girls i.e Roshani and Namrata both aged 11 years
were standing near the door of the room. At that time, the
appellant put his arm around Namrata and pulled her close
and thereafter he rested his head on her shoulder. Ms.
Diksha Gaikwad stated that she had seen this incident
herself. Thereafter, the appellant was warned and
thereafter, no such incident took place. However, the case
of Ms. Diksha Gaikwad is that the appellant was not
transfered from there, hence, she lodged the FIR, though
after 9.10.2015, no such incident relating to any girl took
place.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
incident took place on 9.10.2015 and it is only on account of
internal rivalry in the education institution that this complaint
has been belatedly lodged after one year and two months of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:25:30 :::
3. cri apeal 314-17.doc
the incident. He submitted that this itself shows that the FIR
has been lodged with malafide intention on account of an
afterthought and on account of this delay, there is serious
doubt about the veracity of the statement of the
complainant.
5. We have perused the statement of Namrata. Namrata
in her statement does not mention anything what the
complainant Diksha Gaikwad has stated. Namrata has only
stated that the appellant on the said day caught hold of her
hand. She does not give details like Diksha Gaikwad that
the appellant put his arm around her and pulled her close
and thereafter rested his head on her shoulder but Namrata
only states that the appellant caught her hand. Thus, it is
seen that there is serious discrepancy between the
statement of the victim which has been recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
statement of the complainant Ms. Diksha Gaikwad. This
itself again raises serious doubt about the genuineness of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:25:30 :::
3. cri apeal 314-17.doc
the prosecution case.
6. Learned APP further submitted that Namrata and one
other student Roshani had stated that the appellant used to
call students and makes them sit on his lap. However, it is
noticed that neither Namrata nor Roshani has stated that the
appellant did this act to them nor they mention the name of
any girl with whom such act was done by the appellant.
There is no statement of any other girl to that effect. Though
the FIR was lodged on 5.12.2016, it is noticed that no such
statement of any girl has been recorded that the appellant
used to make her sit on his lap.
7. One other aspect to note is that according to the
prosecution, though this incident had taken place on
9.10.2015, the parents of the girl nor any one else has
lodged FIR at the earliest and only Ms. Diksha Gaikwad had
lodged the complaint one year two months after the incident
that too only on account of the appellant not being
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:25:30 :::
3. cri apeal 314-17.doc
transfered somewhere else. Thus, we find much merit in the
submission that on account of some internal rivalry in the
educational institution, false FIR has been lodged against
the appellant. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the appellant, hence, we proceed to
pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. In the event of arrest, the appellant to be
released on bail in the sum of Rs. 30000/-
[ Rs. Thirty Thousand ] with one or two sureties
to make up the said amount and P.R. Bond in
like amount.
ii. The appellant shall report to Talasary Police
Station everyday from 28.4.2017 between
11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of 15 days
and thereafter as and when called.
8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
