Allowed

Arjun Murlidhar Jogdand v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012APPLN/563/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Aurangabad Bench allowed an application for anticipatory bail. The court relied on medical reports indicating no injuries, mitting of pubic hair, no semen, and normal vaginal examination findings, concluding that the occurrence of rape was not probable despite the allegations involving a mentally retarded prosecutrix.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; personal bond and solvent surety in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- required.

Arjun Murlidhar Jogdand Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

crap563.12

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 563 OF 2012

¶5

Arjun s/o Murlidhar Jogdand...Applicant
VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & anr....Respondents

¶7

Shri M.P.Kale, adovcate h/f
Shri R.T.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant
Shri S.B.Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for respondent

¶8

CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.
DATED : 01.03.2012.

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶11

2. Applicant is named as an accused in Crime No. 155

¶12

of 2010, registered at Washi police station, Taluka
Washi, District Osmanabad for offence punishable under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

3.The accusation in brief is that the complainant�s
sister Naseema Yunus, who is mentally retarted is raped
by the applicant.

¶14

2crap563.12

¶15

4. The medical examination of accused as well as the

¶16

prosecutrix is on record.

¶17

5. The examination of accused indicates that he is

¶18

capable of sexual intercourse.

¶19

6. Medical examination of the prosecutrix reveals :-

¶20

(a) No marks of injuries.

¶21

(b) No matting of public hair .

¶22

(c) No semen or blood stains seem on genitals, thigh, etc.

¶23

(d) No injury was detected. (e) No injury on the vagina.

¶24

(f) One finger could be admitted in Vagina.

¶25

(g) No distensibility is indicated.

¶26

7. Considering that the prosecutrix is mentally retarded, her consent becomes insignificant.

¶27

8.Considering the collective effect of the
observations of medical examination, sexual act in the
form of rape or otherwise does not appear to be
probable.

¶28

3crap563.12

¶29

9. What has revealed prima facie is that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶30

10. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶31

�B�. Personal bond and solvent surety shall be in a
sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

¶32

 (A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶33

dbm/crap563.12

Arjun Murlidhar Jogdand v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Murlidhar Jogdand 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

Rajendra Harischandra Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Taterao Ramchandra Mule Vs the State of Mah

Swapnil Nandkishor Zodge Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Arun Uttamrao Gite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Kitkul Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ayyas Yasin Sayyed and Anr. Vs the State of Mah