Dineshkumar Govind Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 10940 Bom

                                                   1/3      09-IA-3105-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3105 OF 2022
                                                       IN
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.15443 OF 2022

                       Dineshkumar Govind Yadav                           .... Applicant
                                  versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        .... Respondents
                                                          .......

                       •       Mr. Mohansinh U. Rajput, Advocate for Applicant.
                       •       Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

                                                 CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                 DATE        : 18th OCTOBER, 2022

                       P.C. :

1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of

the Appeal preferred by the Applicant.

2. The Applicant and the co-accused - original accused

No.4 were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s

376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 and 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The

major punishment imposed on them was 20 years besides Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date:

2022.10.21

imposition of fine. The Applicant was the original accused No.3 10:59:49 +0530

in POCSO Special Case No.378 of 2015 before the Special Judge

Nesarikar 2/3 09-IA-3105-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt

under POCSO, Greater Mumbai. He was convicted and sentenced

vide Judgment and Order dated 30/08/2019. The Applicant was

arrested on 28/05/2015 and since then he is in custody.

3. The prosecution case is that the victim who was 13

years of age at the time of incident and examined as P.W.7 in the

trial, had left her house in anger on 24/05/2015. Four persons

took her to various places and ultimately all of them committed

rape on her. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. Investigation was

carried out and the Applicant was arrested.

4. Heard Mr. Mohansinh U. Rajput, learned counsel for

the Appellant and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that at the

time of incident, the victim was under influence of liquor and

therefore her capacity to identify the accused was impaired.

Therefore no reliance can be placed on her to connect the

present Applicant to the offence. He submitted that the accused

Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted and benefit of doubt was given to

them. Similar benefit should be given to the present Applicant.

3/3 09-IA-3105-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt

6. Learned APP opposed this application. She submitted

that the victim's evidence is supported by the medical evidence.

She has identified the Applicant before the Court. It is a brutal

offence, and a heinous crime and therefore bail should not be

granted to the Applicant.

7. I have considered these submissions. The victim has

identified the accused/Applicant before the Court. She has also

identified the Applicant at the time of Test Identification Parade

conducted during the investigation. Her evidence is supported

by the medical evidence in the form of deposition of P.W.21

Dr.Shweta Shah. She has deposed that when she examined the

victim on 26/05/2015, in her opinion rape was committed on

her.

8. Considering this aspect, there is sufficiently strong

material against the present Applicant. At this stage, no case for

grant of bail is made out. The application is rejected.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)