Dismissed

Raosaheb Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2012APPLN/2578/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal application challenging the grant of bail to the accused in a rape case. While agreeing that the lower court erred on facts regarding the victim's age, the court held the result should be maintained. A condition preventing entry into the victim's village was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application dismissed; condition of not entering the victim's village upheld for three years.

Raosaheb Pandurang Pathare Vs the State of Mah… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

{1}

¶2

Cri. Application No.2578/2012

¶3

drp

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2578 OF 2012

¶6

Raosaheb Pandurang Pathare APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Another

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr.P.S.Shinde h/f Mr.S.G.Shinde, Advocate for the applicant Mr.P.P.More, APP for respondent State

¶11

Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for the respondent No.2

¶12

[CORAM : M.T.JOSHI, J.]

¶13

DATE: 10th October 2012

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

Heard both the sides.

¶16

The present application is filed for cancellation of the

¶17

bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 by the learned Sessions

¶18

Judge, Aurangabad in Bail Petition No.587/2012 vide order dated

¶19

04.05.2012.

¶20

{2} Cri. Application No.2578/2012

¶21

Respondent No.2 is accused in Crime No.33/2012

¶22

registered with Vaijapur Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 363, 366A, 376, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while

¶24

the educational record of the prosecutorix would show that she was 13 years 9 months and some days old and she before the medical officer has told her age as 14 years, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly observed in the order that as there was consensual sexual intercourse with this minor girl, and it would be clear case of consent. Further the learned Sessions Judge has observed that in view of the contradictions between the statements

¶25

of the prosecutorix that she is 13 years old while profarma of rape case shows her age as 14 years, her age is not correctly recorded. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly observed that it is not prima facie proved that the prosecutorix is minor and, therefore, the accused was wrongly released on bail.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-

¶27

{3} Cri. Application No.2578/2012

¶28

accused submits that besides these observations, the other

¶29

material on record would show that the prosecutorix herself has went with the accused and was with him for 3 days. Further it is submitted that the respondent accused was behind the bars for a period of 7 weeks and investigation is complete. It is, therefore, contended that though the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration these facts and granted bail on erroneous grounds, yet ultimately the result of granting of bail would have been the same.

¶30

The prosecution allegations would show that the

¶31

prosecutorix who is below 14 years of age, has eloped with the accused and was seen after 3 days. The accused was behind the

¶32

bars for a period of 7 weeks and as such the investigation is complete. In the circumstances, though the observations of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the consent are not proper, the net result i.e. conclusion of the Sessions Judge that the applicant shall be released on bail needs no interference. In the circumstances, the same conclusion, as has been arrived by the learned Sessions Judge though for different reasons is maintained.

¶33

{4} Cri. Application No.2578/2012

¶34

The application is dismissed, however, considering the fact that the prosecutorix as well as the accused are residents of the same village, the condition imposed upon the accused by this Court vide

¶35

order dated 10^th August 2012 of not entering into village shall continue with similar directions as are imposed, for a period of 3 years or till the concluding of the trial whichever occurs earlier.

¶36

[M.T.JOSHI, J.]

¶37

drp/criapln2578-12

Raosaheb Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Sanjay Motilal Parihar(Lodhi) and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Kundlik Ghanshyam Kamble Vs the State of Mah

Shrikrishna Vasudeo Vhale Vs the State of Mah

Mahadeo Punjaram Bargaje Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahadeo Punjaram Bargaje Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahadeo Punjaram Bargaje Vs the State of Mah and Ors.