The Single Judge rejected a pre-arrest bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. citing the grave nature of the alleged rape and trafficking offences, the severity of potential punishment, and the need for custodial interrogation of the applicant.
The application for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 20078
Anil Narayan Jadhav .. Applicant
V/s
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.P.M. Khankar for the applicant.
Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2008
P.C. :
1. Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant seeks
pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in
respect of a crime registered with Ahmednagar Tofkhana
Police Station under C.R. No.50/2007 for the offence
punishable under sections 376, 366(a), 114 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4
and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
- 2 -
3. The applicant had previously applied to this
Court for bail. By order dated 8th November 2007, this
Court rejected the said application with liberty to the
applicant to move the Sessions Court, Mumbai. By order
dated 7th February 2008, the Sessions Court, Mumbai also
rejected Criminal Application No.1415 of 2007 filed by
the applicant. In para 6 of the order, the learned
Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting
the application. I see no reason to take a different
view in the matter.
4. I have perused the statement of the victim
recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., a copy of
which was shown to me by the learned A.P.P. The said
statement clearly implicates the applicant to the crime.
In the statement, the victim has clearly stated that she
was raped on several occasions by different people and
has described the role played by the applicant. The
applicant is alleged to have received money for the
purpose of allowing different people to have intercourse
with her. Different people committed the offence of
rape at different places. Investigation is required to
be carried out at different places and interrogation of
different people. This would certainly require
custodial interrogation of the applicant and he may be
required to be contradicted with the statements of other
accused and/or persons. The offence is certainly a
- 3 -
grave offence punishable with imprisonment for life or
10 years. Considering the nature of the offence, the
severity of punishment to be imposed, the applicant
cannot be granted bail. The application is rejected.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted for an offence punishable under sections 376, 366(a) IPC and sections 3, 4, 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Whether the gravity of the offence and need for custodial interrogation preclude bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anil Narayan Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court