Bombay High Court
Chiranjeev Laxminarayan Raut vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Aheri ... on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 22-J-APPEAL-792-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.792 OF 2019
APPELLANT : Chiranjeev Laxminarayan Raut,
Aged : 26 years, Occu : Driver,
R/o Vyenhkatraopetha,
Tah. Aheri, Dist : Gadchiroli.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Aheri,
District - Gadchiroli.
2. Ku. Jyoti Bapu Aalam,
Aged : 19 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Vyenhkatraopetha,
Tah : Aheri, Dist : Gadchiroli.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. R. Fule, Advocate for appellant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State.
Shri Anirudh Ananthakrishnan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 06/01/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:09 :::
2 22-J-APPEAL-792-19.odt
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") challenging the
order dated 13/11/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadchiroli in Criminal Bail Application No.545/2019 in
connection with Crime No.165/2019 registered with the
respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376,
323, 417 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5(l), 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Sections 3(i)(w)(i)(ii), 3(i)(r), 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the appellant on 07/08/2019. Apprehending arrest, the
appellant had filed application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure before the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Gadchiroli which came to be rejected by the order dated
13/11/2019. The appellant has, therefore, filed the present appeal
before this Court. This Court on 02/12/2019 issued notice to the
respondents and protected the appellant by directing his release
on provisional bail in case of arrest. In pursuance of the notice, the
respondent No.2 had appeared in the present matter. There is no
reply filed by the respondent No.2 opposing grant of protection in
favour of the appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:09 :::
3 22-J-APPEAL-792-19.odt
5. We have considered the contents of the First
Information Report. It appears that the respondent No.2 was in
relationship with the appellant. From the contents of the First
Information Report, the respondent No.2 is aged about 19 years.
The accusation against the appellant is that on the promise of
marriage, he developed physical relationship with the respondent
No.2. The prosecution will have to prove the said fact at the time
of trial. The appellant is aged about 26 years. The prosecution has
not pointed out that the appellant has misused the liberty granted
to him by the order dated 02/12/2019. The appellant, in para 5 of
the Appeal Memo, has stated that the appellant has no criminal
antecedents to his credit. The prosecution had not pointed out
that the appellant had misused the liberty granted to him by the
order dated 02/12/2019.
6. We have gone through the contents of the First
Information Report. Prima facie, we find that from the averments
in the First Information Report, ingredients of the offences under
the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not made out.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:09 :::
4 22-J-APPEAL-792-19.odt
7. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
ORDER
I] The impugned order dated 13/11/2019 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal
Bail Application No.545/2019 is quashed and set aside.
II] The order of interim protection granted by this
Court on 02/12/2019 is confirmed, subject to same
condition as stated in the said order.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
