Bombay High Court
Raju Vikram Ghodekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:20688
CriAppln-3753-2024+
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3753 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2024
Raju S/o Vikram Ghodekar
Age 24 yrs, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Pethshivani, Tq. Gangakhed,
District Parbhani.
At Present Latur Dist. Latur ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Deoni Police Station, Deoni,
Tq. Deoni, District Latur. ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Namdev D. Kendre, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. K. Shirse, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3292 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2024
Smt. Sujata s/o Sandeep Giri
Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Household,
R/o: Badi Galli, Deoni (Bk),
Tq. Deoni, District Latur. ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Sachin Subhash Panale, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. K. Shirse, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 02.09.2024
Pronounced on : 05.09.2024
CriAppln-3753-2024+
-2-
ORDER :
1. Both applications are arising out the judgment and order
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir dated 30.07.2024
in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2021, by which both the applicants are held
guilty for offence punishable under Section 366 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code [IPC].
2. Learned counsel Mr. N. D. Kendre for the applicant in Criminal
Application No. 3753 of 2024 would submit that there is false
implication. No role is attributed to the applicant. That, merely
because he was accompanying main accused who is absconding, he
has been impleaded. He had nothing to do with the victim and he had
no role in her alleged abduction. That, there was delayed FIR. He
further pointed out that applicant was on bail during trial. According
to him, applicant has a good case in appeal, but it would take long
time to be heard and hence relief of suspension of sentence and grant
of bail is pressed into service.
3. Learned counsel Mr. S. S. Panale for the applicant in Criminal
Application No. 3292 of 2024 points out that the applicant is a lady.
She was not involved in the alleged act of taking the victim on
motorcycle. That, victim herself left the house when nobody was in
CriAppln-3753-2024+
the house. There was no prompt report. Moreover, applicant was also
released on bail during trial. That, applicant also has a good case on
merits in appeal, but as it would take long time to be heard, he too
prays for relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
4. Both above applications are strongly opposed by learned APP
by submitting that serious offence is committed. On full-fledge trial,
offence of abduction is recorded. There is testimony of the victim. She
has named present applicants as well as the absconding accused.
Present applicants, in furtherance of their common intention,
abducted the victim from her house. Thereafter she was confined in a
godown where the absconding accused committed offence of rape.
Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, learned APP seeks
rejection of the application.
5. After consideration of the submissions of both sides and on
going through the papers, it seems that Deoni police registered crime
bearing no. 32 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 363,
366, 376(n) r/w 34 of IPC. Admittedly, charge of rape is against
absconding accused Gajanan Vikram Ghodekar, whereas present
applicants were chargesheeted for commission of offence under
Section 366 r/w 34 of IPC.
CriAppln-3753-2024+
6. On going through the papers, it seems that victim, after
quarrels with her husband, had left his company and had come to stay
at her parents' place at Deoni. It seems that on 13.01.2019, applicant
in Criminal Application No. 3292 of 2024 called her on the pretext of
abhishek of Lord Mahadev in the temple and thereafter made her join
her to Latur on the pretext of birthday of her daughter. Victim has
deposed that her mobile was snatched and thereafter she was made to
go with two boys on motorcycle towards the godown at MIDC, Latur.
One of the said two boys was the present applicant in Criminal
Application No. 3753 of 2024 and the other one was the absconding
accused Gajanan. The case of prosecution is that, in the godown she
was threatened and rapped by the absconding accused Gajanan and
thereafter, when they sensed search being conducted by family
members, they shifted victim to their relatives' place at Prakash
Nagar, Latur but finally they reached her at her place and on report
lodged by her, crime bearing no. 32 of 2019 seems to have been
registered for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(n)
r/w 34 of IPC.
7. On complete appreciation of the evidence comprising of in all 9
witnesses, trial court convicted them for offence under Section 366 of
IPC. Main accused is still at large. Considering the nature of offence
CriAppln-3753-2024+
and nature of allegations, though there is delayed FIR and one of the
applicants is a lady, this Court does not find it a fit case to extend
relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Both the applications are rejected.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
