Bombay High Court
Raj Popat Mate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:4151
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2023
RAJ POPAT MATE ..APPELLANT
VS.
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2. XYZ ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Narayan G. Rokade a/w Adv. Ajinkya Vilas Taskar a/w
Adv. Udaysinh Deshmukh a/w Adv. Pratibha Pawar for the
appellant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State-respondent No.1.
Adv. Pratik Kalantri for respondent No.2.
Mr. Hemant Bhimrao Rathod, PSI, Panchvati Police Station,
Nashik.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 29, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is an appeal for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 03.07.2023 rejecting the bail
application passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-5,
Nashik in connection with C.R. No.I-186 of 2022 registered
with Panchvati Police Station, Nashik for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(D), 366, 324,
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)
(1)(r), (w)(i), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereafter "Atrocities Act", for short).
3. The date of the incident is 03.06.2022. The FIR is
dated 04.06.2022. The statement of the victim who at the
relevant time was 20 years of age was recorded on
04.06.2022. According to the victim the appellant was
known to her. The appellant on 04.06.2022 came to her
house when only the victim's brother was present. It is
alleged that the appellant dragged her out of the house and
took her on the motorcycle. It is alleged that the appellant
assaulted the victim. The appellant took her to the hospital,
when he told her that she should inform the doctor that she
fell down from the motorcycle. The supplementary
statement of the victim came to be recorded on
07.06.2022. It is alleged that sometime in May 2022 the
appellant had forcible sexual physical relations with her in a
lodge. It is alleged that the appellant harassed the victim by
taking some embarrassing photographs of the victim and
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
blackmailed her into having sexual physical relations on
several occasions against her wishes. It is alleged that the
appellant abused her in the name of her caste.
4. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the appeal. It is submitted by learned APP and
learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the appellant is a
married man who has blackmailed respondent No.2 into
having forcible sexual relations with her on the count of
making viral the embarrassing photographs that he had of
her. It is further submitted that there are allegations in the
name of her caste. It is further submitted that the appellant
is married and the statement of his mother-in-law would
reveal that the appellant assaulted his wife as well.
5. Prima facie, in my opinion the nature of the relations
between the appellant and the victim appears to be
consensual. Further, there is no allegation of rape in the
statement recorded on 04.06.2022. The allegation of rape is
made in the supplementary statement recorded on
07.06.2022. The appellant was arrested on 04.06.2022 and
is now in custody for more than one year and seven months
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
with the possibility of the trial concluding any time soon
appearing to be remote. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, in my opinion the appellant
should not be deprived the facility of bail as the
investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been
filed, however, the same will have to be by imposing
stringent conditions as the victim should not be threatened
by his presence. The trial is unlikely to conclude any time
soon. The appellant does not appear to be a flight risk.
Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nashik is quashed and
set aside.
(c) The appellant-Raj Popat Mate in connection with
C.R. No.I-186 of 2022 registered with Panchvati Police
Station, Nashik shall be released on bail on his
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more
sureties in the like amount.
(d) The appellant is permitted to furnish cash bail
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of 6
weeks in lieu of surety.
(e) The appellant shall attend the Investigating
Officer of Panchvati Police Station, Nashik once in three
months every first Monday of the concerned month
between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. commencing March
2024.
(f) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police
Officer. The appellant shall not tamper with evidence.
(g) On being released on bail, the appellant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to
the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in
case there is any change.
(h) Except for the purpose of attending the Court
proceedings and reporting to the Investigating Officer,
the appellant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Nashik
Municipal Corporation limits after being released on
bail, till the trial concludes.
(i) The appellant shall attend the trial regularly. The
appellant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments.
PMB 22.apeal.1197-23.doc
(j) It is made clear that any attempt on the part of
the appellant to contact the victim or threaten the
witnesses shall be viewed seriously which may result in
cancellation of this bail.
6. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2024 17:54:00
