Bombay High Court
Sultan @ Toufik Inaytulla Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 2-i.ia-3440-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3440 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1001 OF 2022
Sultan @ Toufik Inaytulla Patel ..... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate a/w. Suyash Khose, for the
Applicant.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final
disposal of the appeal preferred by the applicant.
2. Heard Shri Dilip Bodake, learned counsel for the
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
applicant and Shri P.H. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State.
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2022.10.13
15:02:53 +0530
3. Leave to amend to correct the name of prison is
granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
4. The applicant was convicted by the Extra Joint
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad vide judgment and order
1 of 5
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 2-i.ia-3440-2022.odt
dated 21.9.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.18/2017. The
applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code
and was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine
of Rs.3,000/- and in default to suffer SI for one month. He
was also convicted for commission of offence punishable
under Section 506 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for
six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to
suffer SI for one month. Both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently. The applicant was on bail during trial and
he was taken in custody after his conviction.
5. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix, who
is examined as PW-1, was acquainted with the appellant
through her elder sister. He used to meet her on the College
Road. He used to frequently call her. He used to talk her with
love. He had promised that he would marry her. He had told
her that he had six to seven trucks. On 21.12.2016, he had
gone to Pune. At about 2.30 a.m. in the night on 22.12.2016,
the applicant called her on her mobile phone. He called her
2 of 5
:3: 2-i.ia-3440-2022.odt
to meet him on the highway. She told him that it was late in
the night and she was scared. He still asked her to meet him.
She went to meet him near a temple. They talked for some
time and then they went towards his truck. They sat in the
cabin of the truck. There also they kept chatting with each
other. During that time, he told her that he loved her and
that he would marry her. After that she described the
incident of sexual intercourse. According to her it was
against her wish. She then rescued herself and went home.
Her mother woke up. She enquired with her. Then she
narrated the incident to her. After that, the FIR was lodged.
The investigation was carried out. The applicant was
arrested and he faced the trial, which resulted in his
conviction, as mentioned earlier.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
he was on bail during trial and he has not misused the same.
The narration of the prosecutrix itself shows that it was a
clear case of consent and only because her mother got to
know about it, this case was lodged against him. The
3 of 5
:4: 2-i.ia-3440-2022.odt
applicant was falsely implicated in this case. It is case of pure
consent. He submitted that learned Judge erroneously relied
on the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. because those portions were not put to her in her
deposition.
7. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposed this
application. He submitted that the offence is serious and
though the prosecutrix had gone to meet the applicant on
her own, the further incident was against her wish and,
therefore, bail should not be granted to him.
8. I have considered these submissions. From the
narration of PW-1, the prosecutrix, it is very clear that she
had gone to meet the applicant at odd hours i.e. at 2.30 a.m.
in the night in a secluded place. The evidence shows that
they were in love. There are clear indications that she was
fully aware of her acts. Therefore, there is substance in the
submission of learned counsel for the applicant that it was a
case of consent.
9. Considering all these aspects and also taking into
4 of 5
:5: 2-i.ia-3440-2022.odt
account the fact that the applicant was on bail during trial
and there are no allegations of commission of any other
offence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Ultimately his guilt or innocence can be decided only at the
final hearing stage of appeal. However, the applicant has
made out a case for releasing on bail during pendency of
appeal. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.1001/2022, the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicant shall not in any manner cause
harassment to PW-1 in this case.
iii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
5 of 5
