Bombay High Court
Rinku Nana Pardhi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO.32 OF 2020
Rinku Nana Pardhi,
Age : 18 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Pardhiwada, Near Parola Naka,
Dharangaon, Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Dharangaon Police Station,
Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon
2. Mohit Subhash Chavan,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Near Mahadeo Temple,
Pardhiwada, Dharangaon,
Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2
----
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 05.02.2021
PER COURT :
This is an application for cancellation of bail by resorting to
the provision of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicant, who was then still less than 18 years of age, set
the criminal law in motion by filing an FIR on 17.12.2019 on the basis of
2 ACB32-2020
which offence was registered under Sections 376, 417, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act", for short) against respondent No.2.
Apprehending his arrest, he filed application seeking anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Court, Jalgaon. By the impugned order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order granting anticipatory bail, the
applicant is before this Court.
3. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that
though the offence is serious and also covers the provisions of the POCSO
Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge without applying his mind and in
a cryptic manner, decided the application by the impugned order and granted
anticipatory bail merely for asking. He would submit that though the
informant was still a minor and though the learned Additional Sessions Judge
appreciated the fact that her consent would not matter, by making flimsy
observation that she had sufficient maturity and that there was some delay in
lodging the FIR, has readily granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2. The
approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was clearly in dereliction
of the settled norms and the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 be
cancelled.
4. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that the
discretion vested in the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which he has
3 ACB32-2020
exercised for the plausible reasons based on the facts and circumstances of
the case. The parameters for cancellation of bail stand on a different footings.
This Court may not substitute its discretion in place of the discretion
exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. One need not delve as to the seriousness of the crimes under the
POCSO Act. The very object of its being on the Statute book is indicative of
its seriousness.
6. The applicant, stated to be 18 years of age, lodged the FIR,
alleging that when she was studying in 9th standard in the year 2014-2015,
respondent No.2 started stalking her. Since he was her distant relative, he
used to keep coming to her house. She further alleged that during that
period, he clandestinely effected entry into the house from a backside door
and committed rape on her. He also threatened her of consequences if the
incident was disclosed. She further alleged that even thereafter he
continuously stalked her and threatened her. Pertinently, she alleges that he
used to come frequently to her house and used to have sexual intercourse.
She has also stated that sometimes, he used to use contraceptive. Since she
was afraid, she never disclosed this fact to anybody. She further alleges that
when she alongwith a social worker and her mother went to lodge a report
with the Police Station, the mother of respondent No.2 somehow persuaded
them not to lodge the complaint by promising that she would accept her as
her daughter-in-law. She would further allege that even respondent No.2
4 ACB32-2020
once got executed a writing on a stamp paper from her illiterate mother,
stating that there was an affair between the two and with her consent, they
both had indulged in sex. It was promised that since she was still a minor,
the marriage would be performed after she completed 18 years of age.
However, lateron, respondent No.2 and his mother backed off from the
promise and the FIR was lodged.
7. One can easily conclude that going by the allegations respondent
No.2 has sexually exploited the applicant for a sufficiently long period, since
she was around 16 years of age. The papers of investigation would further
corroborate the applicant's version about execution of a writing on a stamp
paper of Rs.500/-. Respondent No.2 and his family seem to be so influential
that they could get executed this writing from the applicant and her widowed
mother. The very fact that they could get such writing executed is indicative
and is sufficient to infer that respondent No.2 had indulged in sex with the
applicant even when she was merely 16 years of age. Pertinently, this writing
also bears his signature and signature of his mother.
8. If such is the state-of-affair, the impugned order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge is indeed atrocious. The only reason that
can be found in the impugned order, which weighed with the learned Judge
is contained in paragraph 6, which reads as under :
"The alleged incident first occurred during the year 2014-15
when the Victim was alone in the house. The accused is
5 ACB32-2020
admittedly known to be Victim and her family and that they are
distantly related. No doubt, the Victim being less than 18 years
old at the relevant time. There was no question of her consent
for the so called relations, which were later on portrayed to be
consensual. Yet the fact remains that the Victim though minor
had sufficient maturity as to what unfortunate incident had
happened with her, wherein she has with meticulous details
mentioned about use of contraceptive by the Applicant. The
applicant had aid and advice of independent adviser as per her
own version and yet there is no explanation for this belated
lodging of FIR. The possibility of false implication of the
Applicant who is now a public servant cannot be ruled out. It is
therefore, that I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail, subject to
stringent conditions so as to ensure that the investigation is not
hampered and Applicant's liberty is not unjustifiedly curtailed."
9. The approach of the learned Judge from such a reasoning clearly
shows his utter lack of sensitivity in such serious matters. Inspite of having
noted that the applicant was still a minor when respondent No.2 had sexually
exploited her and inspite of observing that her consent would be immaterial,
he has concluded that it was a consensual relation. Astonishingly, merely
because she has mentioned in the FIR about use of contraceptive by
respondent No.2, the learned Judge has jumped to the conclusion that she
was having sufficient maturity. The height is committed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge even to record an observation that there is a
possibility of false implication of respondent No.2. Such an approach is a
clear indication that the learned Judge utterly lacks competence. It is indeed
a matter which deserves a serious consideration. The learned Judge has
clearly deprived the Investigating Officer of an opportunity to custodial
6 ACB32-2020
interrogate respondent No.2 by granting anticipatory bail merely for asking.
The reasoning resorted to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly
undermines the legal principles and parameters, which should weigh with
the Court in entertaining the application for anticipatory bail as laid down by
the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, as recently as in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another; (2020) 5 SCC 1.
10. Considering all the above mentioned facts and circumstances,
this is a case where it can easily be concluded that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has not exercised the discretion vested in him judiciously. The
order being clearly perverse, arbitrary and capricious, the application
deserves to be allowed and the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to
respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. The application is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to
respondent No.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by the
impugned order, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 shall surrender
before the Investigating Officer immediately.
12. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of this
Court for placing it before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/ACB32-2020
7 ACB32-2020
