Allowed

Pradeep Dattatraya Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Feb 2008APPLN/222/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application challenging an arrest, the High Court of Bombay acquiesces to a request for conditional bail. The applicant, charged under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the IPC, was granted bail due to his prolonged custody and the court's doubt about the prima facie case, noting prior consensual relations between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions of monthly reporting, residence notice, and prohibition of contacting th

Pradeep Dattatraya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

abs

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2008

¶5

 Pradeep Dattatrya Kale .. Applicant
 V/s

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

 Mr.V.V. Purwant for the applicant.

¶8

 Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶10

 DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY 2008

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Heard.

¶13

 2. The applicant has been arrested on 7th October
 2007 and is charged with an offence punishable under
 sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

 2. According to the prosecutrix, the applicant had
 intercourse with her on 3rd October 2007 near a mango
 tree. He then told his friends Nilesh Shinde, Mahesh
 Shinde, Chintya Lokhande, Ganesh Bhange, Sachin Patil
 and Chetan Dhanavade to have intercourse with her and

¶15

 - 2 -

¶16

 they also had forcible intercourse with her.

¶17

 3. FIR was lodged on 6th October 2007 by the
 prosecutrix. In the FIR, she stated that she knew the
 applicant for 2 years. She had met the applicant in the
 past on few occasions. The applicant once told her that
 he liked her. Once she accompanied him to visit a
 temple at Pandharpur. They had sexual intercourse at
 Pandharpur. She has further stated that thereafter she
 and the applicant had sexual intercourse on several
 occasions. The applicant was married to one Anna Patil
 on 25th May 2007. However, soon she separated from him.
 Thereafter, the applicant called her at Pandharpur on a
 promise to marry when the incident of rape as narrated
 above allegedly took place.

¶18

 4. The prosecutrix had consensual intercourse with
 the applicant on several occasions in the past and even
 thereafter she had voluntarily gone with him at his
 invitation. It is difficult to prima facie accept the
 allegation of rape even before the trial.

¶19

 5. Taking into consideration the nature of evidence
 and especially the fact of previous consensual sex which
 the prosecutrix had on several occasions in the past
 with the applicant and also taking into consideration
 the fact that the applicant is in custody for more than

¶20

 - 3 -

¶21

 4 months and the trial is not likely to commence soon,
 the applicant deserves to be granted conditional bail.
 Hence, I pass the following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

 The applicant be released on bail in connection with the
 offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond
 of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount
 subject to the following conditions.

¶24

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

¶25

 (b) The applicant shall not change his present
 residence without prior intimation to the concerned
 police station.

¶26

 (c) The applicant shall not make threats to the
 prosecutrix or make any attempt to contact her nor he
 shall tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶27

 (d) Any breach of the aforesaid conditions would
 result in cancellation of bail.

¶28

 (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Pradeep Dattatraya Kale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Dattatraya Kale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Haresh Dharmani

Dastgir Bashir Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji @ Janardhan Anant Ghude and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Chandar Piwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Rafiq Noor Mohd. Padaya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs Vasant S. Naik and Anr.