Allowed

Ganesh Vilas Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jul 2013BA/483/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 439 CrPC, the court examined bail pleas regarding an alleged rape and extortion case under IPC and the SC/ST Act. Finding that the applicant made a prima facie case, bail was granted with surrender conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one or two sureties in like amount, prohibiting entry into the jurisdiction of Vairag Police Station, and requirin

Ganesh Vilas Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1.BA.483.2013.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 483 OF 2013

¶5

Ganesh Vilas Deshmukh ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the applicant. Mr.S.R.Shinde APP for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV J.

¶8

DATE : JULY 25, 2013.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant herein is arrested on 7^th November, 2012 in C.R. No.182/2012 registered at Vairag Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (12) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5/11/2011 Sonali w/o Subhash @ Chivya Shinde lodged a report at Vairag Police Station alleging therein that on 1^st November, 2012 she had gone to Barshi as her husband, who was in custody, was being brought to Barshi Court. The complainant has alleged that on 2^nd . November, 2012 at about 8.30 a.m. she had been to meet her motherin-law to inform her that the next date of hearing would be

¶11

Pg 1 of 3

¶12

1.BA.483.2013.doc

¶13

5/11/2012. She found that the house was locked. When she was returning, she was crossing by Bodhale vasti, at that time Prakash Deshmukh and Ganesh Deshmukh followed her, dragged her in to the field of sugarcane and ravished her. On the next day, they had decided to settle the dispute. However, as there was no settlement, she approached to the Police station and lodged the report, on the basis of which C.R.No.182/2012 was registered against the applicant.

¶14

The complainant has stated that her age is 21 years. The compilation of the charge-sheet would show that her date of birth is 21^st November, 1998. The allegations in the F.I.R. would not inspire confidence. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact the school leaving certificate is not that of the prosecutrix as she is resident of Ranjani, Tal. Pandharpur. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix appears to be of the school Adarsh Markanya Prashala, Magarewadi, Tal. Solapur whereas her maternal house is Ranjani, Tal. Pandharpur, and hence the school leaving certificate ought to have been of village Ranjani and not of Magarewadi, Tal. Solapur. The counsel for the applicant further submits that the husband of the prosecutrix is in jail and there are 17 cases pending against him. It is further submitted that, father-in-law of the prosecutrix is also in jail. The Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is in a habit of extortion and that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to the

¶15

Pg 2 of 3

¶16

1.BA.483.2013.doc

¶17

Counsel, in a genuine case, the prosecutrix would not be willing to compromise.

¶18

Be that as it may, upon perusal of the papers of investigation and upon hearing rival submissions, the appicant has made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail.

¶19

Hence, the order.

¶20

i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand ) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶21

ii) The applicant shall not enter in to the jurisdiction of Vairag Police Station till the conclusion of the trial.

¶22

iii) The applicant shall inform the Investigation Officer about his place of residence.

¶23

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )

¶24

Pg 3 of 3

Ganesh Vilas Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Vilas Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Lodha Developers Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manik Chintu Valvi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Tirthraj Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahadeo Appaso Thorat and Anr.

Mohan Chuharmal Gurdasani Vs Shymol / Anupama Varghese and Anr.

Bhairav Enterprises Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.