Bombay High Court
Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Yakub vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps ... on 11 October, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi, Vrushali V. Joshi
1 Cr.Appeal No.220.2022-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2022.
Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Yakub,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Brick Kiln,
R/o. Bedkipura, Talao Fail,
Taluka & District : Yavatmal .... APPELLANT
(In Jail)
------ VERSUS -----
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Yavatmal (City).
2. XYZ (VICTIM),
Crime No. 580/2021,
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Yavatmal (City),
Tal. & Dist. Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
Shri P. W. Mirza, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Amit Chutke, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State.
Ms Mukta R. Kavimandan, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 11.10.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.]
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of both learned
Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the
Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities
2 Cr.Appeal No.220.2022-J
Act, 1989) challenging the order dated 02.03.2022 of the
Sessions Court by which regular bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
4. The facts in brief are that the police have
registered crime at the instance of report dated 13.07.2021
lodged by victim aged 27 years. It is her contention that she
was working as a labourer on a Brick Kiln owned by the
appellant/accused. She has an acquaintance with the accused
which was turned into a love relationship. It is alleged that the
accused promised her for marriage and had maintained sexual
relations from the year 2015 to 2021. On 08.07.2021, when
she insisted for marriage, the accused abused her and flatly
denied, for which she had lodged the report.
5. The appellant/accused came to be arrested on
14.09.2021 since his urge for pre-arrest bail was rejected.
After custodial interrogation, he is in jail till date. The
accused had applied for regular bail in terms of Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Trial Court
declined to exercise discretion in his favour. Thus, by way of
appeal, the accused is seeking for regular bail in connection
with Crime No.580/2021 registered with the Police Station
Yavatmal (City) for the offence punishable under Sections 376,
3 Cr.Appeal No.220.2022-J
376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.
6. It is primely argued that though it is assumed that
there was sexual relations, however, it was consensual one.
The victim is major aged 27 years, knowing fully well the
consequences of the act. The marriage of accused was well
within the knowledge of the victim, still she maintained the
relations. These submissions were made in the alternative
form by essentially denying the occurrence as alleged.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
has pointed out that the Trial Court seriously erred in rejecting
the bail by taking into account totally irrelevant considerations.
He took me through paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order to
contend that the Trial Court has weighed some material which
was not related to this case. We have minutely gone through
the said portion wherein it has been stated that victim was
compelled to marry as well as she was forced for abortion. The
other side has conceded the position that it is not the case of
present victim.
8. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
been filed. The accused is in jail from last 13 months. There
are no specific allegations about use of force of compulsion.
4 Cr.Appeal No.220.2022-J
Though the prosecution has invoked the provisions of the
Atrocities Act, 1989 however neither Caste Certificate is
produced nor it has been specifically referred in the First
Information Report.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 - Victim while resisting the bail has submitted that the
relatives of the accused are pressurizing the victim for
withdrawal of the complaint. For that purpose she has
attracted my attention to one N.C. Report dated 13.05.2022
and few letters sent by the victim to this Court. As per N.C.
Report, the relatives of victim have allegedly pressurized her
on account that the accused was not being released on bail.
10. Having regard to the overall facts, it reveals that
the victim is a major. There was no grievance for initial 7 years.
By the time, the investigation is complete, therefore, there is no
purpose in keeping the accused behind bars for indefinite
period. Certainly to ensure the interest of victim, it would be
just to impose certain conditions while releasing the appellant/
accused on bail. In view of that the following order :
ORDER
1] The appeal is allowed.
2] The impugned order dated 02.03.2022
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Yavatmal in Special Case No.112/2021 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
3] The appellant/accused namely Sheikh Yusuf
Sheikh Yakub be released on bail on he
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25000/-
(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one
or two sureties in the like amount.
4] The appellant shall not tamper the
prosecution evidence and not to try to
contact the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
5] The appellant shall attend the concerned
Police Station on first Sunday of each month
till the culmination of the trial.
11. The appeal stands disposed off. Pending Criminal
Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Digitally signed byRANJANA
MANOJ MANDADE
Signing Date:14.10.2022
16:57
RGurnule
