Mahesh S/O Barshiramji Atkari vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 444 Bom

                                             1                         crappeal 508.20.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2020

 Mahesh S/o. Barshiramji Atkari,
 Aged 30 years, Occ. Private Service,
 R/o. Adam, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.                        ....APPELLANT


          // VERSUS //


 1. State of Maharashtra,
    through Police Station Officer, Bori,
    Dist. Nagpur.

 2. Ku. Khushi Naresh Sonpitale through
     Guardian Chitra Sonpitale (Mother)
     Aged 17 years, Occ. Student,
     R/o. Wardhaman Nagar, Butibori,
     Dist. Nagpur.                                           .... RESPONDENTS
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri P.R.Bhure, Advocate for the appellant.
 Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for the respondent no.1.
 Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate appointed for respondent no.2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
                                                                  AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
                                                    DATED : 08.01.2021


 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 Atrocities) Act,



::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021                                ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:07 :::
                                       2                   crappeal 508.20.odt

 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") challenging the order dated

 09.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in

 Criminal Bail Application No.3025/2020 rejecting the application for

 bail of the appellant, arising out of Crime No.483/2020 under Section

 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of

 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

 "the Act of 2012").



 4.                First Information Report came to be registered with the

 respondent no.1 - Police Station against the appellant with the

 accusation that the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with

 victim on the promise of marriage from August 2018 till February

 2020. The appellant was          arrested   on 8.9.2020.       The appellant,

 therefore, filed Misc. Criminal Application No.3025/2020                    under

 Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected by

 the impugned order.



 5.                The appellant, therefore, filed the present appeal in

 this Court.          This Court, on 18.12.2020 issued notice to the

 respondent no.2 and directed release of the appellant on

 provisional bail on the conditions stated in the said order.




::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:07 :::
                                      3                   crappeal 508.20.odt

 6.                The respondent no.2, who is the mother of the victim,

 is served with notice of the present proceedings. Since the

 respondent no.2 requested for legal assistance, Ms. Aarti Singh,

 learned Advocate was appointed to represent the respondent

 no.2.



 7.                We have considered the contents              of the First

 Information Report. It appears from the report that the victim

 was in relationship with the appellant for about two years. The

 allegation in the First Information Report is that the appellant

 had sexual intercourse with victim on the promise of marriage.

 The appellant is aged about 30 years and the victim is aged about

 17 years from the date mentioned in the First Information

 Report. The appellant was arrested on 8th September, 2020. The

 charge-sheet is filed. The investigation is complete.



 8.                  The prosecution has not pointed out that the

 custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary.                        The

 appellant has made statement in the appeal memo that he has no

 criminal antecedents. The prosecution has not pointed out that




::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:07 :::
                                      4                      crappeal 508.20.odt

 the appellant has misused liberty granted to him by order dated

 18.12.2020. We, therefore, pass the following order:

                               ORDER

 (i)               Criminal Appeal is allowed;

 (ii)              The impugned order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Criminal Bail Application No.3025/2020 is quashed and set aside;

(iii) The order of grant of provisional bail to the appellant passed by this Court on 18.12.2020 is hereby confirmed, on the same conditions stated in the said order; and

(iv) Fees of the Advocate appointed for the present respondent no.2 be paid as per the Rules.

Criminal Appeal is disposed in the above terms.

                   JUDGE                                  JUDGE

 Ambulkar