Bombay High Court
Golu @ Ganesh Ramesh Chavhan vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Digras ... on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
1 4-J-APPEAL-383-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2023
APPELLANT : Golu @ Ganesh Ramesh Chavhan,
Age : 22 yrs, occu - Labour,
R/o Vithala, Digras,
Tah : Digras, Dist : Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Digras Police Station, Tah:Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal.
2. X Y Z,
In crime no.226/2023 dated
05/04/2023 registered by P.S.O.
Digras, Tah. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shaharukh Sheikh, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 19/07/2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(For short, "Atrocities Act"), raising a challenge to the order of
rejection of regular bail dated 31/05/2023 passed in Criminal Bail
Application No.70/2023.
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 23:20:13 :::
2 4-J-APPEAL-383-23.doc
3. The appellant - Golu @ Ganesh Ramesh Chavhan, aged
about 22 years was arrested by concerned police in Crime
No.226/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the
Indian Penal Code. On the basis of statement of minor victim, the
police have added the provisions of Section 376(i)(j) of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, and under Section 3(2) (va), 3(1)(w)(i)
(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. Shri V. A. Thakare, learned APP for respondent No.1
and Shri R. J. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent No.2
resisted to grant bail. They also submitted that the victim being
minor, her consent assumes no significance.
5. It is appellant's contention that out of village rivalry, he
has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that though the
appellant had friendly relations with a young girl, however, he had
not committed sexual intercourse with her. According to the
appellant, there is no material to indicate that he had sexually
assaulted the victim girl. The victim girl was 15 years and 7
months old at the time of incident. We have examined the
statement of victim girl. She stated that on 05/04/2023 in late
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 23:20:13 :::
3 4-J-APPEAL-383-23.doc
midnight, she herself initially sent message to the accused on
mobile on which they had exchange of messages. In the late
midnight, the victim herself went out of the house to meet the
appellant obviously to her boy-friend, as usual. She stated that
thereafter both of them ran towards forest where they missed the
way. According to the victim in said forest, the appellant had
sexual intercourse with her and on following day, they were
brought back.
6. It is evident that the victim was of understandable age
and she went with her own volition with a neighbouring young
boy. There are no allegations that either the accused has used force
or compelled her to leave her house. Though there are allegations
of sexual assault, however, medical report prima facie does not
substantiate her contention. It is a matter of trial to ascertain
whether the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim.
Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Having
regard to the above facts, the appellant's liberty can be protected
by imposing stringent conditions. [
7. In view of the above, the following order is passed :-
ORDER
i] The appeal is allowed.
4 4-J-APPEAL-383-23.doc
ii] The impugned order of rejection of bail dated
31.05.2023, passed in Criminal Bail Application
No.70/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii] The appellant - Golu @ Ganesh Ramesh
Chavhan shall be released on bail in Crime
No.226/2023, registered with Police Station Digras,
District - Yavatmal, relating to offences punishable
under Sections 363, 376(i)(j) of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections
3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with
one or two sureties in the like amount.
iv] The appellant shall not enter within the
territorial limits of Digras Taluka till recording of the
evidence of minor victim.
v] The appellant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
vi] Accused shall provide his intended residential
address and cell number to Investigating Officer.
vii] Breach of either conditions would give rise to
the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Choulwar
