Allowed

Mohan Dattatraya Jadhav v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC29 Jun 2010APPLN/2122/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought bail for the applicant accused of sexual ravishment under IPC and Prevention of Atrocities Act. The bench allowed bail on furnishing surety and executing a personal bond, permitting release subject to a condition of no contact with the prosecutrix and witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing surety of Rs. 20,000 and executing personal bond, with condition not to contact prosecutrix or witnesses.

Mohan Dattatraya Jadhav Vs the State of Mah — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

{1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2122 OF 2010

¶4

Mohan Dattatraya Jadhav

¶5

Age 35, Occu. Caterer, R/o Virdel Road, Shindkheda, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Nandurbar.

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. S.J. Salgare Advocate h/f Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant

¶11

Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for respondent State

¶12

[CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.]

¶13

DATE: 29th June 2010

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.09/2010 registered with Shindkheda Police Station, for an offence punishable U/Sections 376,366-A,504,506 of IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of Prevention of Atrocities Act, in which the applicant came to be arrested on 01/02/2010 at around 10.30 PM. It is informed that after completing the investigation the charge sheet is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sindkheda in Regular Criminal Case No. 39 of 2010. The Trial is yet to be committed to the Sessions Court.

¶16

{2}

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of Rita Saya Padvi who is residing in the boarding school at Sindkheda, Dist. Nandurbar known as Adivasi Ladies Hostel. The offence came to be registered on 01/02/2010 in respect of alleged incident of sexual ravishment at the hands of present applicant who was mess contractor and who was providing food to the students residing in that boarding. It appears from the fact disclosed in the complaint that initially, the prosecutrix was sexually ravished on 13/01/2010, when she was returning from her native place by public transport. When she came to Dondaicha to reach Sindkheda and at that time she met the applicant who offered to give her a lift on his motorcycle, and she agreed to go with him. On their way to Sindkheda, she was taken in one filed where she was sexually ravished. As she was threatened with dire consequences, she had not disclosed this incident to any one. It is further alleged that on 31/01/2010 in the evening around 5.00 PM, the prosecutrix had been to market at Sindkheda for purcahse her daily necessities, at that time applicant came in the market near Raj Photo Studio in his white omni car and forced her to go with him, they crossed hotel Bhusan and she was taken into a field, where prosecutrix was sexually ravished. Thereafter, applicant dropped her at the hostel. This incident was noticed by some of the boys residing in hostel, later on she disclosed the earlier incident as well as the incident which took place with her in that evening. Thereafter with the

¶18

{3}

¶19

consultation of friends and rector of the boarding, the complaint came to be lodged in Sindhakheda Police Station and on the basis of which the applicant came to be arrested in the night on 01/02/2010.

¶20

Perusal of the investigation papers, discloses that during the investigation statement of the Rector as well those boys who had allegedly seen the applicant dragging complainant from the field and also dropped her near hostel to whom the prosecutrix had narrated the incident later on, were recorded, which support the statement of prosecutrix.

¶21

During the course of submissions my attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the applicant, towards the fact that immediately after the arrest of the applicant he was referred for his medical examination. Immediately, after the report was lodged in the Police Station, prosecutrix was also referred for her medical examination. In the case of sexual ravishment, medical examination of prosecutrix as well as the culprit, play very vital role. During the course of entire submissions across the bar, the act alleged at the hands of applicant is not disputed on his behalf, but it is tried to be projected that it is the act by consent of the prosecutrix and not a forcible one, and for that purpose my attention is drawn towards the medical examination of the prosecutrix as well as medical examination of the applicant.

¶22

{4}

¶23

The papers of medical examination of the applicant as well as prosecutrix is matter of record i.e. documents are not disputed on behalf of the prosecution. These documents clearly establish that within 36 hours there was act of sexual ravishment. However, when the prosecutrix was examined no marks of violence were found on the prosecutrix as well as during the examination of the applicant. Inference cannot be drawn that victim is not consenting party. Now as the investigation is over, case is made out by the applicant to enlarge him on bail with certain conditions.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 9/10 registered with Sindhkheda Police Station on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and on executing personal bond in the like amount. After release on bail applicant not to contact the prosecutrix as well as the prosecution witnesses. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

SDM* 2122.10 Cri.Appln.

¶26

[A.V.POTDAR, J.]

Mohan Dattatraya Jadhav v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Dattatraya Jadhav v. the State of Mah

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

Shaikh Hasena Nuruddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Anjum Ennus Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Shamshuddin Momin Vs Nighoj Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Kpatsansttha Maryadit Th Shree Chandrakant Gangadhar Lanke and an

Dhiraj Yashwant Yeole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Vishwanath Gurchal Vs State of Mah

Shrihari Keshav Karale Vs the State of Mah