Allowed

Anil Bapurao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Feb 2008APPLN/192/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an application for bail. The court considered the victim's medical opinion stating she was 18 and habituated to sexual intercourse, alongside her initial statement of voluntary involvement, before granting conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Anil Bapurao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

abs

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2008

¶5

 Anil Bapurao Jadhav .. Applicant

¶6

V/s

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

 Mr.V.V. Purwant i/b Mr.Deepak Shinde for the applicant.

¶9

 Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶11

 DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY 2008

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
 the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with the
 offence registered with Dahiwadi Police Station, Satara
 under C.R. No.76/2007 punishable under sections 363 and

¶15

 366 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the
 prosecution, subsequently an offence punishable under
 section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has also been
 added.

¶16

 - 2 -

¶17

 3. A missing complaint was lodged by Rajendra
 Shankar Pawar on 29th May 2007 that his niece Sheetal
 was missing from 28th May 2007. Subsequently, a first
 information report was registered by the police on 2nd
 June 2007. The applicant was arrested on 25th June 2007
 and since then he is in custody.

¶18

 4. According to the prosecution, the applicant, who
 is a married man, enticed Sheetal, who was a minor, to
 go with him on 28th May 2007. He removed Sheetal from
 the lawful custody of her parents and thereby committed
 an offence. Statement of Sheetal was first recorded on
 25th June 2007. In the statement, she has stated that
 she was in love with the applicant. The applicant had
 told her that he was married and had a daughter aged 5
 years. Despite that she fell in love with the applicant
 and even had sexual intercourse with him on two
 occasions. In the statement, she stated that she left
 the house on her own and went with the applicant
 voluntarily. On 1st July 2007 she changed her version
 and stated that she was enticed by the applicant by
 giving a false promise of marriage and he had sexual
 intercourse with her against her wish. Sheetal was sent
 for medical examination and the medical report says that
 the age of Sheetal is about 18 years and she was
 habituated to sexual intercourse.

¶19

 - 3 -

¶20

 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the
 medical opinion states the age of Sheetal to be 18 years
 and also the fact that she was habituated to sexual
 intercourse and also taking into consideration that in
 her first statement she has stated that she went with
 the applicant voluntarily though she was aware that the
 applicant was a married man with a child, in my opinion,
 the applicant is entitled to conditional bail. Hence, I
 pass the following order:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

 The applicant be released on bail on personal bond of
 Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject
 to the following conditions:

¶23

 (a) The applicant shall not make any inducement or
 threat to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not
 tamper with the investigation.

¶24

 (b) The applicant shall report to the concerned
 police station once a month between 1st and 5th of every
 British calendar month.

¶25

 . The application is disposed of.

¶26

 - 4 -

¶27

 (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Anil Bapurao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bapurao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mushtaq Munna Rein Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Ismail Shabadi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meghnath Kisan Vajekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yeshwant Bapu Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daniel Vedekar Nadar Vs the State of Maharashtra