Allowed

Sagar Pappu Awasarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC19 Sept 2013APPLN/4464/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal bail application of a rape convict. Noting that the appeal is pending due to paucity of time and considering the specific circumstances of the offense raised by the applicant, the court directed his release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs. 25,000.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000.

Sagar Pappu Awasarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

CR.APLN.NO.4464 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4464 OF 2013 in

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.96 of 2013

¶6

Sagar s/o Pappu Awasarkar,
Age 28 years, Occu. Business,
r/o Awasarkar Mala, Burudgaon Road,
Ahmednagar, Talka & District Ahmednagar.

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

(Orig.accused)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶11

2. Kamal w/o Mohan Thorve,

¶12

Age 30 years, Occu. Household,

¶13

r/o Solapurwadi, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

...

¶16

Mr. G.K.Thigale ( Naik), Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State.

¶17

...

¶18

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶19

Date:SEPT., 19th 2013

¶20

...

¶21

P.C.:-

¶22

1. Heard.

¶23

2.The applicant/appellant is convicted by
learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated
25.2.2013 for offense under Section 376 of IPC. The
appeal is admitted on 4th March, 2013.

¶24

2 CR.APLN.NO.4464 of 2013

¶25

3.The appellant had moved this Court for bail
after his appeal was admitted and his bail
application was rejected on April 16th, 2013.
However, permission to tender private paper book
within two months and thereafter, to mention for final
hearing was extended.

¶26

4.Feeling aggrieved by rejection of bail
application, the appellant approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by SLP Cri.M.P.No.17238 of 2013.
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed following order:

¶27

"Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the
special leave petition, with liberty to move
fresh application for bail before the High Court.
Permission is granted. The special leave
petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶28

It is made clear that we have not
expressed anything on the proposed claim of the
petitioner. "

¶29

5.Learned Counsel submits that after FIR,
which was indeed, a delayed effort, appellant was
arrested on 20th Feb., 2010 and was directed to be
released by order of this Court dated 16.6.2010. He
did not misuse bail. Learned Counsel has taken me to
evidence of prosecutrix to criticize the same as to
how offense of sexual assault in the manner it has
been projected, could not have taken place. He
repeats that the room in question had a partition, not
of permanent character but, it was temporary
partition. In adjoining room her brother in law Suresh
Vikram Shelke, maternal brother of her husband, was
sleeping, and her minor son was sleeping with her.

¶30

3 CR.APLN.NO.4464 of 2013

¶31

6.Learned Counsel repeats, indeed, offense
punishable under Section 376 of IPC could not be
established. He says, efforts were made to get the
appeal disposed of, however, it could not be taken up
by successive Courts due to paucity of time.

¶32

7.Learned A.P.P. says, there is already a
positive finding; paragraph No.13 of the judgment
shows the material. The prosecutrix was under threat.
He accepts, the prosecutrix and her husband were
tenant of the premises owned by father of the
appellant/applicant.

¶33

8.Evidence of prosecutrix is re-visited which
substantiates contentions of Mr.Thigale that she was
sleeping with her minor son and Suresh was in the
adjoining room. Her resistance did not yield any
response from said Suresh. That apart, in the cross
examination she accepted that after the incident dated
17th Feb., 2010, on 27th Feb., 2010, while she was
moving her husband on motor bike, he took her to
Market Yard, at a commission agency shop where
appellant / applicant Sagar was sitting and her
husband got annoyed and angry and asked said Sagar to
retain prosecutrix and maintain her. Applicant /
appellant retorted, he was nowhere concerned and
disputed of any illicit relations with prosecutrix.

¶34

9.Considering the above facts, as the appeal
is not taken up though efforts are made by handing
over private paper book, the applicant / appellant
( Sagar Pappu Awasarkar) is directed to be released on
bail.

¶35

4 CR.APLN.NO.4464 of 2013

¶36

The applicant Sagar Pappu Awasarkar be released
on bail on furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- ( Rs. twenty five thousand) to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
at Ahmednagar.

¶37

The applicant shall not exert threats to the
prosecutrix or her husband.

¶38

Bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶39

( K.U.CHANDIWAL )

¶40

 JUDGE

¶41

agp/4464-13crapl

Sagar Pappu Awasarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Pappu Awasarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Sachin Shankar Jadhav U/G Parvatibai Shankar Jadhav Vs M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Umakant Vasant Kumbhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Mahendra Narayan Kabre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Mokinda Patole and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri N C Patil Chairman Shri Deopur Vidhayak Saitee Dhule and Ors. Vs Punamchand Eknath Bhairav and Anr.

Shivaji Raosaheb Hambarde Vs the State of Maharashtra