Deepak Kundlik Bhoir vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2117 Bom

                                                                                  3. cri apeal 418-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2017


            Deepak Kundlik Bhoir                                          .. Appellant

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Mahesh Vasani a/w
            Ms. Dharini Nagda i/by
            Ms. Manashi Mahanta Advocate for the Appellant
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia        APP for the State
                                                   ...................



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

DATE : MAY 2, 2017.

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against

the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the learned Special

Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012, Kalyan. By the said order, the anticipatory bail

Application No. 473/2016 preferred by the appellant came to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

3. cri apeal 418-17.doc

be rejected.

3. The case of the prosecution is that four boys committed

rape on victim girl who was 13 & 1/2 years of age. The

names of the four boys were Sameep, Nilesh Kale,

Prathamesh Bhoir and Vinayak Patil. Prathamesh is the son

of the brother of the appellant and Vinayak is the son of the

sister of the appellant. It is the further case of the

prosecution that the present appellant through one Javed

Tadvi who was employed with him influenced the mother of

the victim girl and entered into an agreement with the

mother of the victim girl stating that Rs. 6 Lacs will be given

to her if she and the victim girl state that the accused

persons had not committed rape on her. Cheque of Rs. 2

Lacs was given and thereafter the remaining amount was to

be given after the accused persons were released from jail.

The cheque of Rs. 2 Lacs bearing No. 014117 drawn on

Allahabad Bank, Kalyan Branch was drawn from the saving

bank account of the present appellant. Thus, it is seen that

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

3. cri apeal 418-17.doc

the appellant has pressurized and tampered with the

prosecution witnesses due to which the mother of the victim

girl and the victim girl were compelled to give a go-bye to

their version that the victim girl was raped by the four

accused.

4. According to the prosecution, the original agreement is

in the custody of the employee of the appellant and it is

required to be seized. The specimen handwriting of the

appellant is also required to be taken and the cheque book is

also required to be seized for which the physical custody of

the appellant would be necessary. Such a agreement is

clearly against the public policy and also amounts to

tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Prima facie, it is

seen that there is tampering of the witnesses. If the

appellant remains outside, he will tamper with the witnesses.

This act of tampering of the witnesses is very serious. These

kind of acts are growing day by day, hence, a serious view

has to be taken. Looking to the facts of this case, assuming

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

3. cri apeal 418-17.doc

that the S.C. & S.T. act is not attracted , we do not think this

is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. The

appeal is dismissed.

5. At this stage, extension of interim protection is sought.

We are not inclined to grant the said request. Request is

rejected.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          4 of 4