Allowed

Sangita Suresh Gavhane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Dec 2013APPLN/6660/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed and disposed of an anticipatory bail application. The petition against the first applicant was disposed of as withdrawn. The court held that the second applicant needed protection and granted him anticipatory bail against unspecified offences.

What did the court decide?

Application of applicant No. 1 disposed of as withdrawn; Application of applicant No. 2 allowed with bail order to be framed in C.R. No. 195/2013.

Sangita Suresh Gavhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No. 6325/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6325 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6660 OF 2013

¶5

Raju @ Rajendra Premraj Kadel and Anr.

¶6

....Applicants.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. V.D. Hon h/f. Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate for applicants.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for State.

¶12

Mr. Z.M. Pathan, Advocate for original complainant.

¶13

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 19th December, 2013.

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

The application is filed for relief of anticipatory bail. Criminal Application No. 6660/2013 is filed for permission to assist the learned APP. Application is allowed and learned counsel Shri. Z.M. Pathan is allowed to assist the learned APP. This Court has perused the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix. This Court has gone through the record of investigation and copies of documents. The lady was present in the Court. It appears that she trusts nobody and she wants to file documents herself even when she is represented by advocate and she is not ready to listen to her

¶16

Cri. Appln. No. 6325/13

¶17

¶18

advocate also.

¶19

The prosecutrix had made allegations mainly against one Kisan Roopchand Kadel that after getting acquainted with her, he kept relations with her and on the first occasion, he had taken sexual intercourse after deceiving her. The first incident is said to be of February 2013 and it is her case that after that on many occasions Roopchand raped her and he was giving threat to make photographs public which he had allegedly taken. She had given one application to police on 4.6.2013. After that, according to her, present applicants came to her and they gave threats and they asked her to take back complaint. She has made allegations against applicant No. 1 - Raju Kadel that on 7.9.2013 he misbehaved with her and committed offence under section 354-A of I.P.C.

¶20

During argument, the learned counsel for applicant No. 1 submitted on instruction that he wants to withdraw the application of applicant No. 1 - Raju Kadel. So the application of applicant No. 1 - Raju Kadel stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶21

The learned counsel for applicant took this Court through copies of applications and representations given by the

¶22

Cri. Appln. No. 6325/13

¶23

¶24

prosecutrix to various authorities including the High Court and they are from 2009. She had made allegations against one Gaikwad in the past that he had kept illicit relations with her. She is a married woman and she is living separate from her husband.

¶25

In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that protection needs to be given to atleast applicant No. 2 - Gopal Kadel against whom there are no allegations constituting offence under section 354-A or 376 of I.P.C.

¶26

So the application of applicant No. 2 - Gopal s/o. Roopchand Kadel is allowed. In case of arrest of applicant No. 2 - Gopal, he is to be released on bail on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) in C.R. No. 195/2013 registered with Sonai Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 376, 354, 394, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. He is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He is not to commit similar offences.

¶27

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶28

ssc/

Sangita Suresh Gavhane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Suresh Gavhane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure Vs Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure and Anr.

Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure Vs Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure and Another

The State of Mah Vs Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.

Hakim Huzur Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaijinath Gitaram Ghogre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalyan Damodhar Ghumre and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra