Bombay High Court
Poonam D/O. Shriram Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso ... on 12 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 appln 54-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APPLN) No. 54 of 2020
Poonam D/o Shriram Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.G. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. Amit Chutke, APP for the respondent No.1
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 12, 2021
This is an application seeking cancellation
of bail granted to the respondent No.2.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant invited attention of this Court to the order
dated 05/07/2019, whereby anticipatory bail was
granted to the respondent No.2 on specific
conditions, including a condition that he shall attend
the concerned Police Station on Thursday between
11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, till completion of the
investigation. The FIR in the present case was
registered for offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)
(n) of the Indian Penal Code and lateron under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. It is an admitted position in the present
case that the victim and the respondent No.2
2 appln 54-2020.odt
(original accused) got married after registration of
the offence. It appears that there has been some
discord in their relationship. It is claimed by the
applicant (original victim) that not only the
respondent No.2 has violated specific conditions on
which he was granted bail, but, he has threatened the
applicant on two occasions, leading to registration of
non-cognizable reports in the concerned Police
Station.
4. It is in this backdrop that the applicant
had filed an application for cancellation of bail before
the Sessions Court. By the order dated 16/03/2020,
the aforesaid Court rejected the said application, but,
added an additional condition in the context of grant
of bail to the respondent No.2. The said condition
was to the effect that the respondent No.2 shall not
visit or reside at village Hivalni Tah. Pusad District
Yavatmal, till investigation is complete, since the
applicant is a resident of that village.
5. The learned APP informs this Court that
the investigation is already completed and that
chargesheet has been filed in December 2020. It is
also stated that list of twenty witnesses was given in
the chargesheet and instructions can be sought as to
how many witnesses the prosecution actually intends
to examine.
3 appln 54-2020.odt
6. This Court has considered the material on
record. Barring allegation of failure of the
respondent No.2 to attend the concerned Police
Station on a couple of occasions, there does not
appear to be sufficient material to pass the drastic
order of cancellation of bail in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The order dated
16/03/2020, passed by the Sessions Court imposing
additional condition has further taken care of the
apprehension of the applicant that the respondent
No.2 would be threatening her.
7. In these circumstances, the present
application is found to be without any merit, but at
the same time, this Court is of the opinion that it
would be in the interest of justice that the trial in the
present case is completed at the earliest.
8. In view of the above, the present
application is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to
proceed to complete the trial and render judgment in
the present case on or before 31/12/2021.
9. The Application is disposed of.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
