Dismissed

Rashmi Manoharlal Katariya v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2012APPLN/3553/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to a medical practitioner accused of sexual offences. The Court held that the Sessions Judge exercised appropriate discretion considering the victim's statements. The appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed without interference with the bail order granted by the Sessions Judge.

Rashmi Manoharlal Katariya Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3553 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3553 OF 2012

¶5

Rashmi d/o Manoharlal Katariya

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr R.S.Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr N.L.Choudhari, Advocate for applicant Mr R.P.Phatke, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State Mr Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 15th October 2012

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The present application is filed for cancellation of the order to release the respondent No.2 on bail, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Bail Application No.596 of 2012.

¶16

The allegations are that the respondent No.2/accused who is a medical practitioner by profession, has administered certain drug to the prosecutrix i.e. the present applicant and under the sedation, made her to take certain obscene photographs and videos. Thereafter by threatening her to circulate those video clips and photographs, he used to commit forcible intercourse with her.

¶17

The respondent No.2 was arrested upon surrender on 26.6.2012. In view of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, he is released on bail on 24.7.2012.

¶18

Cri.Appln.No.3553 of 2012

¶19

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant/prosecutrix submits that the learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the investigation is yet to be completed.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion judiciously, taking into consideration the overall circumstances.

¶22

The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that he has appreciated the rival arguments of the parties, age of the present respondent No.2, having married and having children etc. were also taken into consideration. Further, the contention of the applicant/prosecutrix that the respondent No.2 had promised to marry, was also taken into consideration.

¶23

In view of all these facts, in my view, there is no need to interfere with the discretion that has been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶25

(vvr/3553.12criappln)

Rashmi Manoharlal Katariya v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Manoharlal Katariya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Babruwan Kasbe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Godawari Ramdhan Lulekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ashok Dadarao Sable Vs the State of Mah

Laxman Kundlik Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Kalim Sayed Hasan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pintu Vilas Rathod Vs the State of Mah