Bombay High Court
Akshay Rajendra Wable vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 9 August, 2024
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2024:BHC-AUG:17785
crapl629.24
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2024
Akshay Rajendra Wable
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe
APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S.B. Jadhav
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. G.N. Chincholkar
.....
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATED : 9th AUGUST, 2024.
PER COURT :-
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Special
Case No. 123 of 2024 and further seeking regular bail in crime No.
0387 of 2024 registered with Kotwali police station, Ahmednagar,
district Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(n), 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va),
3(2), 3(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant and
appellant were studying in same class and there was a love affair
between them. It is alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the
informant on the promise of marriage. It is alleged that on several
crapl629.24
times, the appellant sexually assaulted the informant when the
informant insisted him to marry with her. It is alleged that the
appellant threatened to kill her.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the informant is major. There was a love affair between the appellant
and the informant. The sexual relations between the appellant and
the informant were consensual. The appellant is behind bar for more
than 03 months. The investigation is completed and charge sheet
has been filed. The appellant is a college going student. Hence,
requested to allow the appeal.
4. It is the contention of learned A.P.P. alongwith learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 that the appellant sexually assaulted the
informant with promise of marriage. The consent of the informant
was under promise of marriage. The informant belongs to S.C.
category and the appellant was aware about it. The appellant abused
the informant on her caste and threatened her to kill her when she
insisted for performing the marriage. If the appellant is released on
bail, he may pressurize the prosecution witness and influence the
informant. The learned A.P.P. relies on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Arif vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 463 and requested to reject
crapl629.24
the appeal.
5. I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the charge
sheet and the order passed by the Special Court. Considering the
contents of the F.I.R. it appears that the physical relations between
the appellant and the informant were consensual. The informant is
major. The appellant is behind bar for more than 03 months.
Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against the
appellant. The appellant is a college going student. I have gone
through the judgment cited by the learned A.P.P. The facts of the
present case and the cited case are different hence not applicable to
the present case. Considering above reasons, further detention of
the appellant is not required and I pass the following order:-
OR DER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 123 of 2024 is
quashed and set aside.
III. The applicant in connection with crime No. 0387 of 2024
crapl629.24
registered with Kotwali police station, Ahmednagar, district
Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n),
506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va), 3(2), 3(v) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act be released on executing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, on the following
condition :-
a) The appellant shall not influence the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence.
6. Since Mr. Chincholkar, learned advocate is appointed to
represent the respondent No.2, his legal fees and expenses are
quantified at Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the High Court Legal services
Sub Committee, Aurangabad.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
rlj/
