Allowed

Baban Shivram Dandawate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 May 2009APPA/303/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeals matter regarding gang rape, the court allowed two bail applications. The accused were directed to execute priced bonds and appear at the police station on alternate Saturdays pending the disposal of their appeals.

What did the court decide?

Both applicants released on bail upon executing PR bonds of Rs. 15,000 each and sureties; obligation to attend police station on 1st and 15th of every month.

Baban Shivram Dandawate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2009

¶4

Mr. Baban Shivran Dandawate .. Applicant Mr. Ramdas Shankar Khandagale

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Applicant

¶8

Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State

¶9

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J DATE : 05th May, 2009

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard rival submissions for sometimes on the present two bail applications preferred by both the accused for their release on bail during pendency of respective Criminal Appeals filed by them.

¶12

Both Criminal Appeals are filed challenging the judgment and order dated 04th February, 2009 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 414 of 2008. Said case ended in conviction of both the accused for the offence of gang rape

APPA30309050509.sxw

Rma

and for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. For the offence of gang rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, each accused was sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for 1 month.

¶17

Incident of rape occurred on 18th March, 2008 at about 4.30 p.m when the prosecutrix, a married woman aged about 25 years and having one small child of 5 years had gone to her agricultural field for irrigation purpose. That time, allegedly accused persons came there from neighboring filed and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. After the incident, for sometime, prosecutrix remained there and only when another wife of her husband came there, she came home and narrated the incident to her mother in law. However, reportedly, a complaint was lodged with the local police station on 19th March 2008 at about 7.30 am. Thereafter, on 20th March, 2008, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Both the accused were arrested on 20th March, 2008 and were sent for medical examination. Admittedly, substantive evidence of medical officer shows that there were no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix and that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. There was only one abrasion noticed on her wrist and it was a fresh abrasion injury. There were no injuries on her back. This medical evidence is significant considering the allegations of prosecutrix that she went in the field of sugarcane for

APPA30309050509.sxw

Rma

irrigation purpose and both the accused after entering there, committed forcible sexual intercourse after removing their undergarments and also after removing clothes of prosecutrix. It is significant to note that admittedly, there is a dispute over an agricultural property between the husband of prosecutrix and accused no. 1 and injunction was obtained about fortnight prior to incident of rape and it was so obtained by accused no. 1 against another wife of husband of the prosecutrix. It is also significant to note that the second wife who allegedly came to the filed and took the prosecutrix to home is not examined.

¶22

Considering the above circumstances, CA reports and considering the evidence of prosecutrix, in the opinion of this Court, here, it is the case in which on imposing certain conditions, both the applicants can be released on bail during pendency of present Appeals. Hence, the order:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Both the applications are allowed.

APPA30309050509.sxw

Rma

Both the applicants / accused shall be released on bail on their executing PR bonds in sum of Rs. 15000/- each and surety for the like amount each. On availing bail, both the applicants shall attend the concerned Shikrapur Police Station on every 1st and 15th day of every month between 10.00 am to 12.00 noon till disposal of the Appeals.

¶29

(A.R. JOSHI, J)

¶30

APPA30309050509.sxw

¶31

Rma

Baban Shivram Dandawate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Shivram Dandawate 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

Prakash Jayendra Shete and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttam Lalsing Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Jayendra Shete and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Virpal Jaimal Valmiki Vs Dilip Vinayak Patki and Ors.

Ramesh Alias Rimkya Bedya Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Alias Rimkya Bedya Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra