Allowed

Bhiraj Mulji Gohil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Feb 2008APPLN/238/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 376 IPC, the High Court allowed bail to the applicant, who was previously denied bail due to incomplete investigation, now that the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties for aggregate Rs. 20,000/- subject to conditions.

Bhiraj Mulji Gohil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 238 of 2008

¶6

 Bhiraj Mulji Gohil .. Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

 State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

 Mr.Pradip Rajput i/b Smt.Anjali Patil for the
 applicant.

¶10

 Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the State.

¶11

 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J

¶12

 DATED : 18th February 2008

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard.

¶15

 2. The applicant has been arrested on 12th
 September 2007 and is in custody since then in
 connection with an offence initially registered
 u/s.363 of the IPC. Subsequently, offence u/s.376 of
 the IPC was also registered.

¶16

¶17

 3. Perusal of the statement of the victim

¶18

 Priyanka recorded on 12th September 2007 shows that
 she had voluntarily left the house of her parents and
 went to live with the complainant. In her subsequent
 statement dated 24th September 2007 she has stated
 that she married the applicant in a Ram Mandir at
 Navsari. Learned APP submitted that Priyanka, at the
 relevant time was minor aged less than 15 years and
 therefore offence u/s.376 is made out. Learned
 counsel for the applicant disputes the age of
 Priyanka. What was the age of the applicant on the
 date of the alleged offence would be required to be
 decided at trial. Prima facie, it appears that the
 intercourse was consentual and Priyanka claims to
 have married the applicant. In the circumstances,
 the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶19

 4. The previous application made by the

¶20

 applicant for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge
 on 1st October 2007 on the ground that the
 investigation was incomplete. Investigation has
 since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
 Hence the ground on which bail was rejected by the
 Sessions Court does not exist. Taking into
 consideration the facts of the case and also the fact
 that the investigation has been completed, applicant

¶21

¶22

 is entitled to bail. Accordingly, I pass the
 following order:-

¶23

 O R D E R

¶24

 . The applicant be released on bail on
 personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties
 for the aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- subject to
 the condition that the applicant shall not make any
 inducements or threats to any of the prosecution
 witnesses and shall not change his present place of
 residence without prior intimation to the police.

¶25

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Bhiraj Mulji Gohil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhiraj Mulji Gohil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darjit Singh Veriesingh Baxi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Nandkumar Pednekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Mubarak @ Abdul Maniyar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Digambar Baburao Ingavale . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Mustaq Hakim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Ramchandra Yadav Vs Shubha Gangadharan Nair and Anr.