Bombay High Court
Moh. Nawaz Aslam Jahagirdar vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 03-ia-4302-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4302 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2022
Moh. Nawaz Aslam Jahagirdar ..Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Ateet Shirodkar for Applicant.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 16th DECEMBER 2022
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.1196 of 2022. The Applicant was convicted
and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, vide
his Judgment and order dated 23/11/2022 passed in Special
(Atrocity) Case No.48 of 2020. At the conclusion of the trial, the
applicant was convicted for commission of offence punishable
U/s.376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for Ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of
Digitally
signed by
fine to suffer R.I. for Six months. He was acquitted from the
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.12.17
10:48:27
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 4 03-ia-4302-22
Charges of commission of offences punishable under sections 313,
323, 506(2) r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. and under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The Applicant has challenged this Judgment and order
by way of Appeal No.1196 of 2022 which is already admitted and
is pending final disposal. The prosecution case is that the
prosecutrix came in contact with the applicant in the year 2014.
They got friendly resulting in their physical relations. That went on
till July 2018. When she was pregnant, she asked the Applicant to
marry her, but he refused and thereafter this complaint was
lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant was on bail during trial. He further submitted that the
case of the prosecutrix itself shows that it was a consensual
relationship and there was no element of force. Therefore, no
offence under section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. is made out. He
further submitted that the applicant belonged to different religion
and the victim was aware of the difficulty in their marriage. The
3 of 4 03-ia-4302-22
relationship continued for a long period. He further submitted that
the applicant does not have any other criminal antecedents.
4. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted
that, physical relations were established on the false promise of
marriage, therefore, it would amount to misconception of facts and
consent is vitiated. Therefore, the offence is made out.
5. I have considered these submissions. I have particularly
perused the deposition of the prosecutrix who was examined as
PW-1. Their relationship started in the year 2014 and till July 2018
physical relations continued. Though, she submitted that the
relationship was against her wish, but her evidence indicates that
it was a consensual relationship. She was also aware that the
applicant belonged to different religion. In fact, she has stated
that, at the instance her own sister, for some time, she had stopped
meeting the applicant. Thus, it is clear that, though she was aware
of the obstacles, their physical relations continued. At this stage, I
find force in the submission of learned counsel for the Applicant.
The applicant has made out a case for grant of bail pending his
4 of 4 03-ia-4302-22
appeal.
6. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1196 of 2022, the Applicant is directed
to be released on his furnishing P. R. bond in the
sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount.
ii) The Applicant shall not try to contact the victim
and shall not harass her directly or indirectly.
iii)The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
