Manoj S/O Vinayakrao Gulhane vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5827 Bom

                                           1                              45-appeal-438-20.odt


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

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2020

  Manoj S/o. Vinayakrao Gulhane,
  Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
  R/o. Amner (Juna), Tal. Warud,
  Dist. Amravati.                                                        . . . APPELLANT

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Wardu, Tal. Warud,
     Dist. Amravati.

  2. Sau. Janibai Haribhau Tumdam,
     Aged 50 years, Occ. Labour,
     R/o. Vedhapur, Tal. Warud,                                     . . . RESPONDENTS
     Dist. Amravati.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate h/f. Shri P. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for
 appellant.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P. P. for respondent no. 1/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 31.03.2021

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. This is appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

2 45-appeal-438-20.odt

short "the Act of 1989") rejecting Regular Bail Application of the

appellant filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

connection with Crime No. 243/2020 registered against the appellant

with the respondent no. 1-Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)

(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered

against the appellant with the accusations that on 19.06.2020 at 10.00

a.m., the appellant called the respondent no. 2-Informant under the

pretext of issuing death certificate of the son of the respondent no. 2,

that the respondent no. 2 alongwith her son reached Tahsil Office

Warud, that the appellant persuaded the respondent no. 2 and her son

to sit on his motor-cycle and had taken them to his uncle's room. It is

further alleged that the appellant had sent the son of the respondent

no. 2 out of the room on the false pretext and committed forcible

sexual intercourse with the respondent no. 2.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 22.07.2020 rejected

first bail application of the appellant. It is stated by the Advocate for

appellant that the order dated 22.07.2020 was not challenged by the

appellant. The appellant thereafter filed second Regular Bail

Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

3 45-appeal-438-20.odt

which has been rejected by the impugned order by the learned

Sessions Judge.

6. This Court on 06.11.2020 issued notice to the respondents.

On 09.01.2021, this Court recorded that though the respondent no. 2

is served, none appears for the respondent no.2. Though, the

respondent no. 2 is served, she has not appeared before this Court

either personally or through an Advocate.

7. Having carefully scrutinized the contents of the FIR and the

material produced by the prosecution in the form of charge-sheet and

on carefully considering all the material, it appears that the respondent

no. 2 is aged about 50 years and the appellant is aged about 40 years.

The investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. The appellant

is arrested on 28.06.2020. Learned Advocate for the appellant has

stated that there are no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the

appellant. The prosecution has not pointed out that further custody of

the appellant is necessary.

8. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

(i) The impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2020

passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-4,

4 45-appeal-438-20.odt

Amravati in Criminal Bail Application No. 1199/2020 is quashed and

set aside.

(ii) The appellant having been arrested in connection with

Crime No. 243/2020 registered with the respondent no. 1-Police

Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be

released on furnishing P.R. bond to the sum of ₹ 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty

Thousand) and one solvent surety in the like amount.

(iii) The appellant shall attend the proceeding before the

Sessions Judge on each and every date unless granted exemption by

the learned Sessions Judge.

(iv) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly influence the

witnesses or tamper the evidence likely to be produced in the trial.

              (v)            The appeal is allowed in the above terms.




                             JUDGE                                                  JUDGE


RR Jaiswal