Bombay High Court
Sandeep S/O Diwakar Gawande vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso ... on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 15-appeal-448-20j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2020
Sandeep S/o. Diwakar Gawande,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Station File, Murtizapur,
Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola. . . . APPELLANT
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Murtizapur,
Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola
Investigated by S.D.P.O.,
Murtizapur.
2. Mamta Bhaurao Kudmethe,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ. Private Service,
R/o. Telephone Colony, Murtizapur
Tah. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P. P. for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri Y. J. Sheikh, Advocate for respondent no. 2/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 06.04.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
2 15-appeal-448-20j.odt
"the Act of 1989"), the appellant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 22.10.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in
Misc. Bail Application No. 676/2020 rejecting application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") in
connection with Crime No. 349/2020 registered with the respondent
no. 1-Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 354(D),
376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989.
4. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered
against the appellant with accusations that the respondent no. 2 was
knowing the appellant from 2017, as the appellant was working as Lab
Technician. It is alleged that the appellant had expressed his feelings
about respondent no. 2 to her but the respondent no. 2 did not pay
heed to the requests of the appellant. It is further alleged that in
November-2018, when the respondent no. 2 was alone at the house,
the appellant proposed to perform marriage with the respondent no. 2
and the respondent no. 2 under the fear shown her willingness to
marry the appellant. It is alleged that on 04.01.2019, when the
respondent no. 2 was alone, the appellant performed forcible sexual
intercourse with the respondent no. 2 with the result, the respondent
no. 2 got pregnant. It is alleged that on 10.02.2019, due to ill-health
of respondent no. 2, the fetus was aborted. It is alleged that thereafter
3 15-appeal-448-20j.odt
from time to time, the appellant refused to perform marriage with the
respondent no. 2 and abused the respondent no. 2 in the name of
caste. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 on 19.09.2020 lodged report
with the respondent no. 1-Police Station.
5. The appellant was arrested on 20.09.2020 and therefore,
the appellant filed Misc. Bail Application No. 676/2020 under Section
439 of the Code, which was rejected by the impugned order. The
appellant has therefore, filed the present appeal challenging the order
of rejection of the application under Section 439 of the Code.
6. This Court on 26.11.2020 issued notice to the respondents
and released the appellant on provisional bail subject to conditions
stated in the said order. The respondent no. 2 has filed reply
contesting release of the appellant on bail. It is stated in the reply that
the appellant and his relatives had threatened and forced the
respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of prosecution against the appellant.
7. We have carefully considered the contents of the FIR and
material brought on record by the appellant by way of charge-sheet.
On careful scrutiny of the material produced on record, it appears that
the appellant is aged about 32 years and the respondent no. 2 is aged
about 24 years. As per the allegations in the FIR, the first incident of
sexual intercourse between the appellant and the respondent no. 2
4 15-appeal-448-20j.odt
took place on 04.01.2019 and it is further alleged that the appellant
had repeatedly forced himself upon the respondent no. 2. The report
is lodged on 19.09.2020. The appellant is in jail since 20.09.2020.
The appellant has stated that he is employed with Bank of India,
Murtizapur Branch since 2013 and belongs to respectable family. It is
also stated that there is no criminal antecedents to dis-credit of the
appellant. Insofar as the allegation of threats give to the respondent
no. 2 are concerned, these threats are allegedly given prior to the order
of release of the appellant on provisional bail on 26.11.2020. Neither
the respondent no. 1/State nor the respondent no. 2 have brought on
record any material to show that after the release of the appellant on
provisional bail on 26.11.2020, the appellant has misused liberty
granted to him by this Court. The investigation is complete and
charge-sheet is filed. We are therefore satisfied that the order of
release of the appellant on provisional bail deserves to be confirmed on
the same condition.
8. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
(i) The impugned order dated 22/10/2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Misc. Criminal Application No.
676/2020 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order of provisional bail dated 26.11.2020 passed by
this Court is confirmed on same conditions.
5 15-appeal-448-20j.odt
(iii) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 475 OF 2020.
In view of the disposal of the present appeal, this Criminal
Application praying for grant of time to file certified copy of order
dated 22.10.2020 does not survive. It is disposed accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
