Shanmukhsing S/O. Hanumansing ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10706 Bom

                                                    1          17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.250 OF 2021

 Shanmukhsing s/o Hanumansing
 Bundel, Aged 24 years,
 R/o Shivaji Ward, Ballarshah,
 Tq. Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.                            ... APPELLANT
                                                                  (In Jail)

                               VERSUS

 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Through Police Station Officer,
    Police Station Ballarpur,
    Tq. Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.

 2. Shital Amarsing Thakur,
      Aged about 29 years,
      R/o C/o Sanju Kankam,
      Near Mata Mandir,
      Dadabhai Nauroji Ward,
      Ballarsha, Tq. Ballarpur,
      Dist. Chandrapur.                                       ... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for appellant.
 Ms. S. S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
 No.1-State.
 Shri Y. B. Mandpe, Advocate for respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
                                             G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 10/08/2021.

JUDGMENT : (PER : G. A. SANAP, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

2 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

3. In this appeal filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenge is to the order dated 17/06/2021

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur,

whereby learned Judge rejected the application for bail made by

the appellant in Crime bearing No.642/2021 registered with

Ballarpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

354, 354-B, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code R/w Sections

3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section

67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as

follows :-

4. The appellant would be referred as accused in this

Judgment. The crime was registered on the basis of report of the

Informant - Shital Amarsing Thakur dated 04/06/2021. The

accused and the informant came into contact with each other near

the work place of the informant at Bhaskar Stationery situated at

Balaji Ward. After their acquaintance, one day the accused gave

one chit to the informant. In the said chit, the accused has

3 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

expressed his liking for the informant and requested her to call

him on his mobile number given in the chit. The informant called

him. There was frequent talks between them thereafter. It is

alleged that on 26/05/2021, the accused called the informant to

meet him near Sai Mandir at Balaji Ward and from there, he took

her at Junona Forest, Lal Road where he beat her and dropped her

at her house.

5. On 01/06/2021, he again took the informant to

Junona Forest and established physical relationship and sexually

assaulted her despite the resistance. It is alleged that the accused

recorded video of the informant in half naked condition. On

03/06/2021 at 10.00 p.m., the accused went to her house and

expressed his desire to marry with the informant. She did not

agree and therefore, he abused her in the name of her caste. He

threatened to publish the half naked photo of the informant. On

03/06/2021, informant came to know that the accused made half

naked video viral on Facebook. She, therefore, went to the police

and lodged a report. On the basis of her report, the crime

mentioned aforesaid was registered against the accused. He was

arrested and presently, remanded in judicial custody.

4 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

6. It is the case of the accused that he has not

committed the offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case.

There is no evidence to connect him with the crime. His custodial

interrogation is not necessary. The investigation is almost over. No

purpose would be served in detaining him in jail. His detention

would amount to pre-trial conviction. He, therefore, prayed for

bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

7. This application was opposed by the prosecution

contending that the legally admissible evidence has been collected

during the course of investigation to establish the complicity of the

accused in the commission of crime. The accused is in a

dominating position and as such, the possibility of tampering with

the prosecution evidence and threatening the informant cannot be

ruled out.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after giving

thoughtful consideration to the facts brought on record before him

came to the conclusion that the case was not made out to enlarge

the accused on bail.

9. Being aggrieved by this order of rejection of bail,

the appellant / accused has come before this Court in appeal. We

5 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the record

and proceedings.

10. Learned advocate for the accused submitted that

the investigation is almost over and therefore, for the purpose of

custodial interrogation, the detention of the accused is not

warranted. Learned advocate submitted that the accused has been

falsely implicated in this case. Learned Advocate further submitted

that the detention of the accused during the pendency of the trial

for indefinite period would amount to pre-trial conviction.

Learned advocate submitted that the accused is ready to abide by

the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

11. As against this, learned A.P.P. submitted that

considering the seriousness of the offence, the accused is not

entitled for bail. Learned APP submitted that the accused is in a

dominating position and therefore, the possibility of threatening

and tampering with the prosecution evidence at the hands of the

accused, cannot be ruled out. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the

investigation is almost over and very shortly, charge sheet would

be filed.

6 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced before us. We have perused the record. It is

pertinent to note that while deciding the bail application from the

appeal against the rejection of bail order, merits of the prosecution

case cannot be touched. It is pertinent to mention that any finding

on merits at this stage can prejudice either the accused or the

prosecution. At this stage, it is necessary to see whether prima

facie the case in question is a fit case to grant bail to the accused.

It is true that the crime is serious. Perusal of the record would

show that since all the articles involved in the crime were seized

immediately after the arrest of the accused, the Investigation

Officer did not pray for police custody of the accused. Learned

APP submitted that the investigation is over and the charge sheet

would be filed very shortly against the accused. This fact would

show that for the purpose of investigation in this crime, the

detention of the accused is not at all warranted. Learned A.P.P.

has expressed the apprehension that the possibility of the accused

pressurizing the witnesses and tampering with the prosecution

evidence cannot be ruled out. In our considered opinion, on the

basis of this apprehension, the accused cannot be denied bail. The

apprehension placed on record by the learned A.P.P. can be

7 17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

appropriately redressed by imposing the conditions. In our

considered opinion, no fruitful purpose would be served by

detaining the accused in this crime. We, therefore, conclude that

the appropriate conditional bail needs to be granted to the

accused. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal deserves to be

allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Hence, the following

order :-

ORDER

i] Appeal is allowed.

ii] The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Chandrapur dated 17/06/2021 is set aside.

iii] The appellant who has been arrested in connection

with Crime No.642/2021 registered with Police Station,

Ballarpur, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 354-B, 376 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)

(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 67-A of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 is directed to be

released on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one

surety in the like amount.

                                             8         17-APPEAL-250-21.odt

        iv)    The appellant shall till the filing of the charge-sheet

in the aforesaid crime not enter the limits of Tahsil

Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. He shall however co-

operate in the investigation and attend Police Station

Ballarpur initially on 17th August 2021 and thereafter as

and when directed by the Investigating Officer. His entry

in Ballarpur Tahsil shall only be for the purposes of co-

operating with the investigation. He shall not take any

steps to influence either the complainant or the

prosecution witnesses. He shall abide by the directions of

the Investigating Officer.

v] It is clarified that the observations made in this

order are only for the purposes of deciding the present

appeal.

The Criminal Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.

                 (G. A. SANAP, J.)              (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)


 Choulwar