Navnath Dattu Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9792 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                              8_apeal.266.2021 (J).doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.266 OF 2021

            Shri Navnath Dattu Chavan                               ... Petitioner
                       Vs.
            State of Maharashtra & another                     ... Respondents


            Mr.Rajesh More for the Appellant

            Mr.K.V. Saste, APP, for Respondent - State

            Mr.S.R. Phanse, advocate appointed for Respondent No.2

                                         CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: JULY 19, 2021
                 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 27, 2021

            JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. This Appeal takes an exception to the order dated

3rd September, 2020 below exhibit 8 in Bail Application No.259 of

2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune

thereby rejecting the prayer of the appellant to release him on

regular bail in connection with C.R. No.47 of 2019 registered with

Talegaon MIDC police station.

8_apeal.266.2021 (J).doc

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited the

attention of this Court to the allegations in the First Information

Report and submitted that the said allegations are false and

concocted. Though the alleged incident had taken place on 28 th

January, 2019, the First Information Report had been lodged

belatedly on 8th March, 2019. It is submitted that the injury shown

in the medical report is fresh. If the incident had taken place way

back on 28th January, 2019 and the victim was medically examined

on 9th March, 2019, there cannot be a fresh abrasion/injury. It is

submitted that there is a previous enmity and to seek revenge,

First Information Report has been lodged. The learned Counsel

submitted that the appellant is in jail since his arrest for a

considerable period of time and, therefore, the appellant deserves

to be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP invites attention of this

Court to the allegations in the First Information Report and also the

medical evidence and submits that the appellant has committed

heinous offence and keeping in view the stringent provisions of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the

8_apeal.266.2021 (J).doc

appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. In case he is

released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses

and evidence.

5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and

the learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State. We have

carefully perused the allegations in the First Information Report so

also the medical report placed on record. It is true that the alleged

incident had occurred on 28 th January, 2019 and the First

Information Report has been lodged on 7 th March, 2019. It is only

on 7th March, 2019, when the son of the informant, at the relevant

time aged 10 years, disclosed the informant that the present

appellant, who is residing in the adjoining house had asked the

victim to accompany him and he will teach him how to drive the

vehicle. Since he was not ready, the appellant abused him. It is

stated in the First Information Report that the son of the informant

was seen in a frightened condition and then, he narrated the

earlier incident dated 28th January, 2019 at 7pm. Upon a careful

perusal of the allegations in relation to the said incident, in our

opinion, there cannot be slightest doubt in the mind that the

8_apeal.266.2021 (J).doc

alleged incident is heinous in nature and at the relevant time, the

victim was minor, 10 years old. It is stated by the victim in his

statement recorded on 8th March, 2019 that he did not disclose the

incident to his parents since he was scared of the accused.

However, he immediately stated about the said incident to his

friends Sahil Kamble, Paras Chavan and Ajinkya Chavan. The

prosecution has also produced on record medical examination

report of the victim in which it is stated that the alleged offence had

occurred and disclosed the nature of injuries suffered by the victim.

We have carefully perused the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

keeping in view the allegations made in the First Information

Report, we are of the opinion that the ingredients of the said

alleged offence are attracted and consequently, the alleged

offence has been prima facie disclosed.

6. The age of the victim is about 12 years. The appellant has

stated in the First Information Report that the appellant is residing

in the adjoining house of the informant. In that view of the matter,

mere delay in lodging the First Information Report itself would not

be sufficient to release the appellant on bail. As already observed,

8_apeal.266.2021 (J).doc

the victim boy has stated that he was scared of the accused and,

therefore, out of fear, he did not disclose the incident to his

parents. However, he had immediately disclosed about the

incident to his friends. Keeping in view the discussion in the

foregoing paragraphs and the apprehension that in case, the

appellant is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution

witnesses and evidence, we are not inclined to entertain this

appeal since the alleged offence is very heinous in nature which

would attract the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

7. In that view of the matter, the Appeal stands dismissed.

8. We direct the Special Court to expedite the trial and take it

to a logical end within a period of six months from today. In case,

the trial is not concluded within six months from today, we grant

liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer for bail.

9. Rule stands discharged accordingly.

                             (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                            (S.S. SHINDE, J.)



              Digitally signed by
              VISHWANATH
VISHWANATH    SATYANARAYANA
SATYANARAYANA SHERLA
SHERLA
              Date: 2021.07.27