Bombay High Court
Yogesh S/O Rajendra Upadhyay vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps ... on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 19-J-APPEAL-743-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.743 OF 2019
APPELLANT : Yogesh s/o Rajendra Upadhyay,
Aged about : 28 years, Occu.
Private Job, R/o Ward No.5,
Samrat Nagar, Nandafata,
Tah. Korpana, Distt. Chandrapur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
P. S. Gadchandur, Tq. Korapana,
District - Chandrapur.
2. Ku. Komal Dhanpal Kale,
Aged about : 26 years, Occ. Teacher,
R/o Nandafata, Post Nanda,
Tah. Korapan, District - Chandrapur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate (Appointed) 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.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:01 :::
2 19-J-APPEAL-743-19.odt
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 24/10/2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Bail
Application No.1167/2017 in connection with Crime No.415/2019
for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) 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 on 02/10/2019. The accusation in the First
Information Report is to the effect that the appellant sexually
exploited the respondent No.2 on the promise of marriage. In the
First Information Report, it is alleged that the appellant was in
relation with the respondent No.2 for 5 years prior to lodging of
the First Information Report. The appellant, therefore, filed an
application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. By the impugned
order, the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur rejected the
pre-arrest bail application of the appellant, mainly on the ground
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:01 :::
3 19-J-APPEAL-743-19.odt
that Section 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 prohibits grant of
anticipatory bail. The appellant, therefore, filed this appeal before
this Court. This Court on 13/11/2019, granted protection to the
appellant on the condition as stated in the said order. This Court
on 13/11/2019 issued notice to the respondents. The respondent
No.1 has filed reply and has contested the appeal by stating that
considering the gravity of the offences registered against the
appellant, the appellant is not entitled to protection from this
Court.
5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
appellant that during the pendency of the present appeal, the
Appellant and Respondent No.2 have approached this Court by
way of application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report and the
said application is pending.
6. We have gone through the contents of the First
Information Report and the impugned order. From the accusations
in the First Information Report, it appears that the appellant was
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 22:01:01 :::
4 19-J-APPEAL-743-19.odt
in relation with the respondent No.2 for 5 years before lodging of
the First Information Report. From the contents of the First
Information Report, prima facie, it does not appear that the
appellant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the
respondent No.2. In so far as the allegations in the First
Information Report, we find that the allegations in the First
Information Report, prima facie, do not attract the ingredients of
the offience under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
appellant, in para 16 of the appeal, has stated that the appellant
has no criminal antecedents. The prosecution has not pointed out
that the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him by the
order dated 13/11/2019. The prosecution further has not pointed
out that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary.
7. We, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
I] The impugned order dated 24/10/2019 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Bail
Application No.1167/2017 is quashed and set aside.
5 19-J-APPEAL-743-19.odt
II] The order of this Court dated 13/11/2019
granting interim protection to the appellant is hereby
confirmed on the same condition.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
8. Fees of the Advocate appointed to represent the
respondent No.2 be paid as per the rules.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
