Bombay High Court
Anil Krushnaji Vani vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.Appeal No.214.2022-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2022.
Anil Krushnaji Vani,
Aged about : 32 years, Occu.: Self Employed,
R/o. Vaishali Nagar Ward No.3, Bramhani,
Tah. Kalmeshwar, Dist. : Nagpur. .... APPELLANT
------ VERSUS -----
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kalmeshwar Police Station,
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.
2. XYZ - Complainant/Victim,
(Crime No.118/2022),
Kalmeshwar Police Station,
Tah. Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur .... RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
Shri S. K. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Ms Sonali Khobragade, Advocate (Appointed) for the Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 04.05.2022.
JUDGMENT : [PER : AMIT BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT.
3. By this appeal under Section 14-A of the Schedule
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 the appellant is challenging order dated 29.03.2022
passed by the Special Court, the Scheduled Castes and the
2 Cr.Appeal No.214.2022-J
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur
rejecting application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure arising in pursuance of Crime No.118/2022
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v),
3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the appellant with the accusations that the appellant
aged about 32 years developed love relationship with the
respondent No.2-complainant aged about 25 years. On
25.06.2021 the appellant took the complainant for going
outside and brought her in the Lodge at MIDC, Kalmeshwar.
He had forcible sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 on
promise of performing marriage with her. It is alleged that
thereafter, 3 to 4 times, the appellant and the respondent No.2
visited at Kalmeshwar and had sexual intercourse with her.
When the appellant refused to marry the respondent No.2,
resulted in registration of the First Information Report.
5. The appellant has therefore filed an application for
bail before the learned Special Court, which is rejected by the
3 Cr.Appeal No.214.2022-J
impugned order dated 29.03.2022. The appellant has
therefore, filed present appeal.
6. This Court on 08.04.2022 issued notice to the
respondents. The respondent No.2 was served. She appeared
before this Court personally on 27.04.2022. She stated that she
has no financial capacity to engage services of an Advocate.
Therefore, this Court appointed Ms Sonali Khobragade, learned
Advocate to represent the respondent No.2. In pursuance of
the said, the respondent No.2 has filed reply stating that the
physical relationship between the appellant and the respondent
No.2 was for a period of two years, resulting in two months
pregnancy. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 aborted the
pregnancy. It is stated that in view of refusal of the appellant to
marry, the First Information Report came to be registered.
7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the
First Information Report, the impugned order and replies filed
by the respondents. From the perusal of the material on record
in the form of First Information Report and replies filed by the
respondents, prima facie, it appears that the relationship
between respondent No.2 and appellant was spread over two
years. Appellant and respondent No.2 had repeated sexual
intercourse. Prima facie, it appears that the sexual relationship
4 Cr.Appeal No.214.2022-J
between the appellant and the respondent No.2 was
consensual in nature.
8. The learned A.P.P. stated that investigation is
almost over. In the light of the allegations levelled, custodial
interrogation of appellant is not warranted. It is however
expected that the appellant shall co-operate with the
investigation. We therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
i] The impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by
the learned Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Nagpur in Criminal Bail
Application No.694/2022 is quashed and set aside.
ii] The appellant Anil Krushnaji Vani, shall be
released on bail in connection with Crime
No.118/2022 registered with the respondent No.1
- Police Station on furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
iii] The appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when called for.
iv] The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing the facts to the Court
or to any Police Officer and shall not tamper with
the evidence.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Ms. Sonali Khobragade, learned Advocate being
appointed to represent the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to
professional fees, which quantified at Rs. 3,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
Digitally signed byRANJANA
MANOJ MANDADE
Signing Date:05.05.2022
14:51
