Bombay High Court
Gopal Ramkrushna Sawke vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Washim ... on 13 October, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi, Vrushali V. Joshi
1 901.appeal.509.2020 Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2020
Gopal Ramkrushna Sawke
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Private,
R/o. Hirangi, Tq. Mangrulpir,
... APPELLANT
Distt. Washim (in Jail)
(Ori. Applicant)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station, Washim
(City), District Washim.
2. XYZ,
Victim/Complainant,
Crime no.778/20,
PSO, PS, Washim City,
Distt. Washim. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. K. S. Malokar. Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent
No.1/State.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 13/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER: VINAY JOSHI, J.]
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of both learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
2 901.appeal.509.2020 Judgment.odt
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act') raising a challenge to
the order dated 24.11.2020 by which regular bail came to be
rejected.
4. The learned APP for the respondent No.1/State has filed
Pursis that victim is duly served, but she is absent. The
appellant/accused was arrested in Crime No.778/2020 registered
with Police Station, Washim (City) for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
of the Atrocities Act.
5. The crime was registered on 03.09.2020 at the instance
of victim lady aged of 28 years. It is victim's case that she was
serving as a Nurse in the Hospital where appellant/accused was also
serving as a C.T. Scan Operator. They had causal acquaintance, in
which the relationship was developed. On 18.03.2020 around 7.00
p.m. in the evening the appellant/accused went to the house of the
victim and expressed his desire marry and sexually abused her on the
point of knife. The victim stated that due to fear and pandemic
period, she was prevented from filing report which she did on
3 901.appeal.509.2020 Judgment.odt
03.09.2020.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant though
denied the incident, in the alternative submitted that at the most it is
case of consensual relationship. It is submitted that there is
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and there is no corroborative
evidence. The State resisted by supporting the order passed by trial
Court. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature and
possibility of tampering the evidence cannot be ruled out.
7. This Court has released the appellant on interim bail
vide order dated 21.12.2020. There is no complaint about misuse of
liberty during last two years. Already investigation is completed and
charge-sheet has been filed. The victim is grown up lady of 28 years.
Though victim alleges forcible sexual intercourse, however for next
six months report was not lodged. Naturally due to passage of time
there cannot be medical evidence. The learned counsel appearing for
appellant in order to prove his stand took through certain
statements, including landlord of victim who supported the defence.
The trial will take considerable time for its disposal. There is no
purpose in keeping accused behind bars for indefinite period. It is
matter of trial to establish consent was obtained by
misrepresentation.
4 901.appeal.509.2020 Judgment.odt
8. Having regard to all above facts, the appellant has made
out a case of interference and grant of bail. Appeal is allowed.
9. The impugned order dated 24.11.2020 passed below
Exh.4 in Special Atrocities Case No.181/2020 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The Interim order dated 21.12.2020 is confirmed on same
terms and conditions.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:14.10.2022
18:37
