Bombay High Court
Xyz vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:899
PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.778 OF 2023
XYZ ..APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Neha R. Kokare for the appellant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.
PSI Vijay Kolhe, Yawat Police Station, Pune Rural.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 9, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
APP for the State.
2. The appellant by this Criminal Appeal challenges an
order dated 13.04.2023 enlarging the respondent No.2-
original accused No.1 on bail in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 385, 389, 504, 506,
109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under
Sections 3(1), 3(1)(2), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 7(1)(d) of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the
relationship appears to be consensual in nature. According
to learned counsel for the appellant, in the FIR it is
mentioned that the victim was taken to the lodge only once
whereas the trial Court erroneously proceeded on the
footing that the accused had taken the informant to the
lodge on several occasions.
4. I have gone through the order of the trial Court.
Respondent No.2-original accused No.1 is on bail since
13.04.2023. The reasons which prevailed with the trial
Court while enlarging the applicant on bail finds mention in
the impugned order. The bail granted is on a sound
consideration. I am not inclined to interfere with the order
passed by the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant however submitted
that the accused No.2 who was granted anticipatory bail as
well as the present respondent No.2-accused No.1 are
threatening the appellant and such averments are found in
ground No.9 of the Appeal memo. Though I am not inclined
PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc
to interfere with the order of the trial Court, it is necessary
to observe that it is open for the appellant to bring this fact
to the notice of the trial Court. Based on the facts which are
placed for consideration before the trial Court as regards
the threats issued, the trial Court can always consider to
grant of witness protection to the appellant or for
cancellation of bail for breach of conditions. It is open for
the appellant to move an application for cancellation of bail
before the trial Court on the ground that the threats are
being issued by the accused or that there is an attempt to
tamper with the witnesses. If such an application is made,
the same shall be considered on its own merits without
being influenced by the observations made in this order. The
trial Court may pass appropriate orders thereon in
accordance with law.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Criminal
Appeal is rejected.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2024 20:53:18
