Bombay High Court
Sau. Sushma W/O Sunil Rathi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 5 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
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.
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
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
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
