Bombay High Court
Amit Ramchandra Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45 OF 2021
Amit Ramchandra Patil ]
R/at, Jainam Ratnam Building, Flat No.62, ]
Room No.401, Vulve Sector-23, Navi ]
Mumbai, NRI Sagari, Navi Mumbai ]
(Presently lodged at Taloja Jail). ] ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Sr.P.I. Rabale Police Station, ]
District Raigad.) ]
2. Ms. Neeta Pandhari Raut, ]
R/At Shreeji Heights, B-203, Sector-8, ]
Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Rabale. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil with Mr. Vivek Patil and Ms. Saili Dhuru for the
appellant.
Ms. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rahul Shelke with Ms. Sarah Momin for respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01ST FEBRUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 14:20:12 :::
2/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
JUDGMENT:- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities
Act"). By this appeal, the appellant (orig. accused) has challenged order
dated 24/12/2020 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Thane, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant was rejected.
2. The appellant is accused for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)
(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") as also under Sections 3(1)
(W)(i), 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act. As per the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 (orig. complainant), the appellant and respondent
No.2 were working together in a company. The appellant allegedly
entered into a relationship with the said respondent and assured her of
marriage. According to respondent No.2, by making such statement, the
appellant lured her into having physical relationship with him.
Respondent No.2 then claimed that the appellant started avoiding her as
a result of which, she felt cheated and she was driven to lodge the
complaint leading to registration of the First Information Report ("FIR").
3. The police undertook investigation in the matter and the appellant
was arrested in connection with the said FIR. The appellant moved an
application for grant of bail on the ground that the relationship between
the parties was consensual and that even if the statements of respondent
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 14:20:12 :::
3/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
No.2 were to be accepted, there was no necessity of further custody of
the appellant, particularly when there was no substance in the allegations
levelled by respondent No.2 with regard to the alleged offences under
the Atrocities Act.
4. By the impugned order dated 24/12/2020, bail application filed by
the appellant was rejected. The court below took into consideration the
allegations made in the FIR and upon placing much stress on certain
photographs of the appellant and respondent No.2 together, came to the
conclusion that no case is made out for grant of bail.
5. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the parties were
admittedly in a relationship, at the relevant time, as they were working
together in a company. It was submitted that the relationship had gone
sour which resulted in respondent No.2 submitting the complaint
leading to registration of FIR. It was submitted that the ingredients of
offences registered against the appellant under the IPC and the Atrocities
Act were not made out and that therefore, the impugned order deserved
to be set side and the appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited attention of this
court to an application for intervention filed by respondent No.2 before
the court below stating that she desires to withdraw the complaint filed
against the appellant. She has further stated that she regretted lodging of
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 14:20:12 :::
4/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
the FIR and that she has no objection to the appellant being released on
bail. This application was dated 28/09/2020, which ought to have been
taken into consideration by the court below before passing the impugned
order.
7. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
submitted that the said respondent stood by the statement made on her
behalf in the intervention application filed before the court below. It was
further submitted that the affidavit to that effect was filed in the
accompanying writ petition being Writ Petition No.160 of 2021, which
was filed by the appellant for quashing of the FIR. It was submitted that
the said affidavit could be treated as having been filed in the present
appeal and that respondent No.2 has no objection to grant of bail to the
appellant.
8. Ms. Pai, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of respondent-State,
submitted that the FIR pertains to serious offences of rape and cheating
against the appellant as also under the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of rival
parties. A perusal of the complaint leading to registration of FIR would
show that respondent No.2 claims that when she was in relationship with
the appellant while working together in a company, the appellant gave
her assurance of marriage and established physical relations with her.
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 14:20:12 :::
5/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
There is also mention of certain allegations indicating that offences
under the Atrocities Act were also committed.
10. The FIR was registered as far back as on 10/07/2020 pursuant to
which the appellant was arrested on 18/08/2020. The charge-sheet was
filed in the present case and thereafter, the bail application moved by the
appellant was rejected by the impugned order passed by the court below.
11. Although charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, it
appears that in the interregnum, respondent No.2 has expressed her
desire not to pursue the matter any more and this is evident from the
application for intervention dated 28/09/2020 filed before the court
below. In the said application, it is specifically stated that she and the
appellant were working together in a company and their friendship
developed in a love affair. It is also stated that she desires to withdraw
the said complaint, having regretted lodging the said complaint in the
first place. An affidavit has also been placed on record in the
accompanying writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the
FIR and a statement is made on behalf of respondent No.2 that the same
can be treated as having been filed in the present appeal also.
12. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly taking into
consideration the application for intervention filed by respondent No2
before the court below and the affidavit placed before this court
expressing her desire not to pursue the matter and further stating that
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 14:20:12 :::
6/6 41 Cri Apeal-45.21 (01-02-21) J.odt
she has no objection to grant of bail to the appellant, we are of the view
that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. This is particularly in the
backdrop of the admitted fact that the appellant has been behind bars
since 18/08/2020 and the charge-sheet is already filed in the present
case. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in the following terms:
:O R D E R:
(a) The impugned order dated 24/12/2020 passed by the
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, is
quashed and set aside.
(b) The bail application filed on behalf of the appellant -
Amit Ramchandra Patil is allowed subject to the
appellant furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- and a
surety in the like amount.
(c) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses.
(d) In the event, the appellant violates any of the aforesaid
conditions, the relief of bail granted by this court will be
liable to be cancelled.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
