Bombay High Court
Lavi Anuraj D/O Bibhuti Ranjan ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rana ... on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 13-APPLN 55.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 55 OF 2020
( Lavi Anjuraj vs. State of Maharashtra and another )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr. D. M. Dixit, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 17/08/2021
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. This is an application seeking cancellation
of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. The
contention being that in the facts and circumstances
of the present case and in the absence of compliance
with the mandate of judgment of this Court in the
case of Arjun Kishanrao Malge vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC On Line Bom 551,
bail could not have been granted by the Sessions
Court. Another aspect which is highlighted is that on
the 9th day of registration of the FIR, the Sessions
Court granted bail in the present matter, on which
KOLHE
2/4 13-APPLN 55.2020
day the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
was being recorded before the Magistrate.
3. This Court has perused the order dated
29/10/2020, passed by the Sessions Court granting
bail to the respondent No.2. The Sessions Court has
taken into consideration the backdrop of the report
lodged against the respondent No.2. It is an admitted
position that the allegation against the respondent
No.2 is that he indulged in activities leading to
offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012. The crucial aspect of the matter is
that the alleged victim in the present case is the step
daughter of respondent No.2. The sexual assaults
allegedly took place between 04/04/2016 and
30/06/2017. Admittedly, the report leading to
registration of the FIR was lodged on 20th October,
2020. This aspect was taken into consideration by
the Sessions Court while granting bail.
4. The admitted position in the present case
appears to be that the mother of the victim and the
respondent No.2 got married and it was the second
marriage for the mother of the victim. The husband
and wife developed matrimonial discord despite the
fact that there was a child from the said wedlock.
The lady along with two children i.e. victim from her
KOLHE
3/4 13-APPLN 55.2020
first marriage and the second child from the marriage
with respondent No.2, left the matrimonial house and
after a gap of about three years from the dates when
the sexual assaults had allegedly taken place, caused
lodging of the report leading to registration of the
FIR.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts
in the present case are telling and that they have been
taken into consideration by the Sessions Court in a
proper manner while granting bail. The delay in
lodging the report, in the backdrop of the
matrimonial discord between the parties are relevant
factors, correctly taken into consideration by the
Sessions Court while granting bail. The grievance of
the applicant is not that the respondent No.2 in any
manner violated the conditions of the bail. Insofar as
substantially challenging the order of granting bail to
the respondent No.2 is concerned, particularly by
relying upon the said judgment in the case of Arjun
Kishanrao Malge vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),
this Court is of the opinion that only because the
position of law clarified in the said judgment was
allegedly not followed to the hilt in the present case,
cannot be a ground to interfere with the order
granting bail. The considerations for grant of bail,
KOLHE
4/4 13-APPLN 55.2020
rejection of bail and cancellation of bail are obviously
distinct and in the opinion of this Court, no case is
made out for cancellation of bail. Application is
dismissed.
JUDGE
KOLHE
