Dilip S/O Harikisan Jaiswal vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Chikhali ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 223 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                              apeal722.19.odt




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


                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2019


 Dilip S/o. Harikisan Jaiswal,
 Aged about 53 years, Occ : Business,
 R/o. Chikhali, Tah. Chikhali,
 District : Buldhana.

                                                                     .... APPELLANT.

                                    // VERSUS //


 1.    State of Maharashtra,
       Through Police Station Officer,
       Police Station, Chikhali, Tah.Chikhali,
       District : Buldhana.

 2.    Bhagyashree Samadhan Ghule,
       Aged about 35 years,
       R/o. Paradh, Tah. Bhokardhan,
       District : Jalna.
                                                       .... RESPONDENTS.
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri A.S.Dhore, Advocate for Appellant.
 Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
 Ms Sweety Bhatia, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2.
 ___________________________________________________________________


                         CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 06, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT.

Judgment 2 apeal722.19.odt

3. This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

challenging the order dated 14th October 2019 passed by Special Judge,

Buldana rejecting Criminal Bail Application No. 373 of 2019 in connection

with Crime No.614 of 2019 registered with respondent No.1 Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 324, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered against the

appellant with the accusations that the respondent No.2 was in relationship

with the appellant for 4 years. The appellant promised her that he will

provide employment to the sons of the respondent No.2. It is further alleged

that on 24th September 2019 the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse

with the respondent No.2.The respondent No.2, therefore, on 25 th September

2019 filed report with respondent No.1-Police Station. The appellant came to

be arrested on 25th September 2019. The appellant, therefore, filed Criminal

Bail Application No.373 of 2019 which was rejected by the impugned order.

The appellant, therefore, has filed present appeal. This Court on 6 th

November 2019 issued notice to the respondents and released the appellant

on provisional bail. The respondent No.2 after service of notice requested for

grant of legal assistance through High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Judgment 3 apeal722.19.odt

Nagpur. Ms S.H. Bhatia, Advocate was therefore, appointed to represent the

respondent No.2.

5. Today, when the matter was called out, Shri A.S.Dhore, learned

Advocate for the appellant submitted that in the order dated 6 th November

2019 it was incorrectly mentioned that the charge-sheet is filed. He on 11 th

November 2019 filed application for speaking to the minutes to delete the

reference regarding filing of the charge-sheet.

6. We have gone through the contents of the First Information

Report and the contents of the impugned order. After having carefully

considered the contents of the First Information Report and the impugned

order, we find that from the accusations in the First Information Report itself

it is clear that the respondent No.2 was in relationship with the appellant for

four years. The respondent No.2 is aged about 35 years. The respondent

No.2 is married and is having three children. Though the respondent No.1 in

its reply paragraph No.8 has pointed out that there are three crimes

registered against the appellant, the appellant has annexed the copy of the

judgment in Sessions Case No.82 of 2012 by which the appellant was

acquitted of the offences bearing Crime No. 49 of 2012 which was registered

under Sections 302, 323, 342, 201 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of

the crimes which are registered against the appellant are under Section 188

of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65-E of the Maharashtra Prohibition

Act.

            Judgment                                   4                              apeal722.19.odt




           7.                The appellant has annexed copy of the charge-sheet.                The

investigation is complete. The prosecution has not been able to point out

that custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. It is also not

pointed out that the appellant has misused the liberty granted by order of

this Court on 6th November 2019.

8. Hence, we pass the following order:

i) The impugned order dated 14th October 2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Buldana in Criminal Bail Application No.373 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.

ii) The order granting provisional bail dated 6 th November 2019 is hereby confirmed on the same conditions stated in the said order.

The criminal appeal is allowed in the above terms.

9. Fees of Ms S.H.Bhatia, Advocate appointed to appear on behalf

of the respondent No.2 be quantified as per Rules.

CRI. APPLN. NO. 982/2019.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the application praying for

speaking to the minutes of the order dated 06/11/2019 has become

infructuous, hence, it is disposed.

                             (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                       (Z.A.HAQ, J)

RRaut..