Bombay High Court
Shubham Gulabrao Kalapad vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Washim ... on 28 July, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cri.Appeal No.284.21-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2021
Shubham Gulabrao Kalapad,
Aged 25 years, Occ. : Cultivator,
R/o. Old IUDP Colony, Second Phase,
Washi, Tq. & Dist. Washim. .....APPELLANT
. . . VERSUS . . .
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer, Washim,
(City) Police Station, Tq. And Dist. Washim.
2. Manisha Narayan Wankhede,
Aged 21 years, Occ.: Labourer,
C/o. Kute's House, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Kale Faill, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim. .....RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 28.07.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Though the office note shows that respondent No.2 -
Manisha Narayan Wankhede is not served, Shri V. A. Thakare,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that she is present in
the Court Hall. She disclosed her identity as a respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2021 22:16:59 :::
2 Cri.Appeal No.284.21-J.odt
3. In view of this, notice to the respondent No.2 is
complete.
4. ADMIT.
5. Taken up for final hearing.
6. This appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is filed by the appellant because of the application filed by
the appellant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure i.e. Criminal Bail Application No.238/2021 is rejected
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on 06.07.2021.
7. Heard Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri V. A. Thakare, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our
attention to page 32 of the compilation. It is an affidavit filed by
the respondent No.2 before the Trial Court. The affidavit would
show that she was instigated by her relatives and therefore, they
took her to Police Station. She claims that she was not knowing
what is stated in the report and her signature was only obtained.
In the said affidavit she solemnly states that she will not have any
objection if the bail is granted to the appellant. The learned
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2021 22:16:59 :::
3 Cri.Appeal No.284.21-J.odt
Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application after
perusal of the case diary and by observing it he noticed that there
was sexual intercourse with the victim on various occasions by the
appellant upon the assurance of marriage with her.
9. Today also respondent No.2 in vernacular submitted
before the Court that she was not knowing what is stated in the
report. It was prepared by her relatives and only her signature is
obtained and there is no objection for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. At the time of lodging the First Information Report,
her age was 21 years. Though the respondent No.2 is not highly
qualified, but she has completed her education of middle school.
She can write and she can read.
11. After perusal of the First Information Report, we are
of the view that the applicant can be granted bail in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in
(2019) 9 SCC - 608. In that view of the matter, we pass the
following order :
ORDER
i. Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Washim dated 06.07.2021 in Criminal Bail Application
No.238/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. Appellant Shubham Gulabrao Kalapad is directed to
be released on bail in connection with Crime No.1078/2021
registered with the Police Station Washim for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)
(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on executing P. R. Bond of
Rs.15000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.
iii. The applicant is directed to visit the concerned Police
Station as and when he is called by the Investigating Officer.
However, for that the Investigating Officer shall give a clear-cut
communication of 48 hours.
iv. The appellant shall not give any type of threat to the
respondent No.2.
v. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
In view of disposal of the Criminal Appeal, pending
Criminal Application (APPA) No. 394/2021 does not survive. The
same stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
