Pranay Chandrahar Mane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 14575 Bom

                      1/7                                                  cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Digitally
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         signed by
         SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH
TALEKAR
         TALEKAR
         Date:                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2021
         2021.10.06
         14:37:45
         +0530

                      Shri Pranay Chandrahar Mane,
                      Age 26 years, Occ. Labour,
                      R/o. Kshetra Mahuli,
                      Taluka and Dist. : Satara
                      (Presently lodged in Kolhapur
                      District Prison (City))                     ... Appellant

                      Versus

                      1. State of Maharashtra
                      (At the instance of Satara City Police,
                      Station.)

                      2. XYZ                                      ....Respondents

                                                       ****
                      Mr.Sanjiv Kadam i/b Mr. Prashant P. Raul for appellant.
                      Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale for respondent No.2.
                                                       ****

                                        CORAM :         S. S. SHINDE &
                                                         N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
                                        Reserved for Judgment on : 28th September 2021.
                                        Judgment Pronounced on : 6th October 2021.

                      JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. This appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC&ST Act,

1989') is directed against the order dated 19th May 2021 on an

application (Exh.13) in Spl.(POCSO) Case No.64/2021, whereby the

Shraddha Talekar PS 2/7 cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

learned Special Judge was persuaded to reject the application of

the appellant-accused for bail.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be

summarized as under :-

(a) The appellant has been arraigned in C.R.

No. 94/2021 registered with Satara City Police

Station for the offences punishable under sections

376(2)(n), 376(3), 307, 354(d), 323, 452 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code') and

sections 3(a), 4, 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO),

for having sexually exploited the victim, a 14 year

old girl, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, by

threatening to defame her and kill her parents. The

first incident of exploitation allegedly, occurred in

the month of October 2020. The appellant had

forced the victim to come on the terrace of her

house and had sexually exploited her twice

thereafter.

(b) On 2nd February 2021, the appellant

allegedly attempted to strangulate the victim when

Shraddha Talekar PS 3/7 cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

she resisted the attempt of the appellant to molest

her. In the process, the victim suffered injury on her

nose. On the morning of 3rd February 2021, upon

being inquired, the victim narrated the incident to

her mother and subsequently report was lodged

with the police.

(c) Investigation commenced. The appellant came to

be arrested on 3rd February 2021. During the course

of investigation, the victim was medically examined.

Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet has

been lodged.

(d)The appellant preferred an application for bail.

By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge

was persuaded to reject the application opining,

inter-alia, that the appellant was prima-facie

involved in a grave offence. At the same time, the

learned Special Judge directed the prosecution to

expedite the trial.

(e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with

the impugned order, the accused is in appeal.

3. Admit. Taken up for final hearing.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 4/7                                                           cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

4. We have heard Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Ajit

Kenjale, the learned counsel for respondent No.2. With the

assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have perused

the material on record including the report under section 173 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') and its

accompaniments.

5. Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel for the appellant advanced a

multi-fold submission. Firstly, the allegations in the first

information report lodged by the victim, according to Mr. Kadam,

ex-facie appear improbable. Secondly, the medical evidence belies

the claim of the victim. Thirdly, there is inordinate delay in lodging

the report. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the

appellant is in custody since 3 rd February 2021, and post-

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been lodged,

the further pretrial detention of the appellant is wholly

unsustainable, submitted Mr. Kadam.

6. Per contra, Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP would urge that the

allegations against the appellant are of grave nature. Inviting the

attention of the Court to the fact that the appellant, who is 27

years of age, exploited the victim, who is barely 14 year old girl, Mr.

Shraddha Talekar PS 5/7 cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

Yagnik would urge that the appellant does not deserve to be

released on bail. None of the grounds urged on behalf of the

appellant, according to Mr. Yagnik, are worthy of consideration, at

this stage. The learned Special Judge has committed no error in

rejecting the application, submitted Mr. Yagnik.

7. Mr. Kenjale, the learned counsel for respondent No.2,

supported the submissions of the learned APP.

8. We have considered the rival submissions canvassed across

the bar. To begin with, it is imperative to note that there are clear

and categorical assertions in the first information report about the

circumstances in which the appellant allegedly sexually exploited

the victim. The appellant allegedly threatened to defame the victim,

kill her parents, forced her to send her photos in objectionable

state to him and made her to have forcible physical relations. The

submission on behalf of the appellant regarding the delay in

reporting the matter is required to be appreciated in the backdrop

of the situation in life of the victim and the circumstances in which

she found herself. It is trite that in the matters of sexual

exploitation, especially of the children, the element of delay, does

not assume decisive significance.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 6/7                                                cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

9. The next submission based on the absence of corroboration

by medical evidence, was rested on the observations in the medico-

legal examination report of the victim. Mr. Kadam laid emphasis on

the report as regards the examination of external genitals to lend

support to the submission that there was no evidence of sexual

assault. At this juncture, we are afraid to accede to this

submission. It is imperative to note that the victim had narrated

before the Medical Officer, the history of exploitation and assault,

which materially corresponds with the allegations in the first

information report. Medical Officer also opined that the possibility

of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

10. The situation which thus obtains is that there is prima-facie

material to show that the appellant had allegedly subjected the

victim to harassment and sexual exploitation. The victim is a girl of

tender age. In the backdrop of the nature of the accusation, the

learned Special Judge cannot be said to have committed an error in

observing that there is material to indicate prima-facie involvement

of the accused in a grave offence, and declining to exercise the

discretion in favour of the appellant. Likewise, the apprehension of

tampering with evidence and threatening the victim and the

prosecution witnesses, cannot be said to be unfounded.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 7/7                                                         cri.apeal--551-2021-JF.doc

11. We are, thus, not persuaded to take a different view of the

matter and exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant.

12. Since, the learned Special Judge has given direction to the

prosecution to expedite the trial, we deem it appropriate to direct

that the trial be completed as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a year from the date of communication of this

order.

13. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The appeal stands dismissed.

(ii) The learned Special Judge shall decide the Special

(POCSO) Case No. 64/2021 as expeditiously as possible

and preferably within a period of one year from the date

of communication of this order.

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]                                    [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]




Shraddha Talekar PS