Bhushan Raj Durkellu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9537 Bom

                                                  1/3           18-IA-1892-22-IN-APEAL-669-22.odt

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1892 OF 2022
                                                     IN
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.669 OF 2022

                       Bhushanraj Durkellu                               .... Applicant

                                versus

                       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       .... Respondents
                                                        .......

                       •     Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey i/b. Savj Law Solutions, Advocate for
                             Applicant.
                       •     Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for the State/Respondent.
                       •     Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent
                             No.2.

                                                CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                DATE        : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       P.C. :

1. This is an application for bail during pendency and

final disposal of the Appellant's Appeal before this Court. Vide

Judgment and Order dated 11/03/2022 passed in Special Case

No.249 of 2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V

the Applicant was convicted for commission of offence V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date:

2022.09.21 16:44:04 +0530

punishable u/s 354, 354-A, 377, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

Nesarikar 2/3 18-IA-1892-22-IN-APEAL-669-22.odt

and u/s 3, 7 and 5(m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The major punishment imposed on

him is for 20 years besides fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for Applicant submitted that there was

CCTV footage at the spot, where the incident allegedly had

taken place, but no CCTV footage is produced. He submitted

that the medical evidence does not show any injury. There is no

corroboration to the victim's deposition. The allegations are

made much belatedly and therefore the Applicant be granted

bail. The Applicant has two small children.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 as well as

learned APP opposed this application.

4. I have considered these submissions. I have perused

the evidence of the victim, who is examined as P.W.2. She has

narrated the incident. Her date of birth is 29/03/2009. The

complaint was made in the year 2019. She has deposed that 3/3 18-IA-1892-22-IN-APEAL-669-22.odt

since she was in second standard, the Applicant committed this

offence on her. Ultimately when she was in 4 th standard, the

accused's acts became unbearable, she informed about this to

her mother. Then the complaint was lodged and the

investigation was carried out. Though the doctor did not find

injuries, in the final opinion it was mentioned that possibility of

anal penetration could not be ruled out. Similarly, possibility of

vaginal penetration also could not be ruled out.

5. Thus, the prosecution has led serious evidence against

the Applicant. All these issues will have to be tested during the

final hearing stage. The Applicant has however not made out the

case for his release on bail based on this material. The

Application for bail therefore is rejected. The Appeal is

expedited.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)