Allowed

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Sept 2014ABA/1127/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court bench granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of forcing a trained nurse informant to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) under false pretenses. The court found it difficult to believe the intelligent prosecutrix would confuse sonography with MTP and allowed the application on bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants enlarged on bail via P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety, subject to attending police stations.

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode Vs the State of Maharashtra — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

910.ABA1138_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1138 OF 2014

¶5

Deepali Yuvraj Khade … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1127 OF 2014 (Not on board, taken on board)

¶8

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr. Amarsinha Sonkawade, Advocate for the applicant in ABA No. 1138 of 2014.

¶10

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr. Dhananjay V. Kendre, Advocate for the applicant in ABA/1127/2014.

¶11

Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶12

I.O. Mr. B.A. Kurve, A.S.I., Shivajinagar Police Station, Kolhapur.

¶13

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11^th September, 2014.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

These Applications are moved for anticipatory bail, as the

¶16

applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 313 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the coaccused is facing charges under sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

It is the case of the informant that she has completed her nursing

¶18

course and is working in Ichalkaranji as a nurse. At that time, she came

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

910.ABA1138_2014.doc

¶21

in contact with the coaccused Shrikant Purshuram Pawar. They developed love between them and thereafter as per the case of the prosecutrix Pawar promised her that he would marry her and so she consented to sexual relations with him. It is her case that he had forcible intercourse with her without her consent. In July, 2014 when she conceived, coaccused Pawar pressurized her to go for MTP which she was not ready. However, on 28^th July, 2014 the applicants/accused along with coaccused Shrikant Pawar took the prosecutrix to Mauli Hospital Warna and under the pretext of Sonography, her MTP was performed. Hence, these two ladies are prosecuted.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the prosecutrix is 27 years old lady. She is a trained nurse working in the hospital. He further submitted the applicants/accused are innocent and they have not committed any offence under section 313 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Learned APP submitted that the applicants have caused a forceful abortion and therefore, they are not to be granted prearrest bail.

¶24

On perusal of the record, it appears prima facie that the prosecutrix

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

910.ABA1138_2014.doc

¶27

who is a trained nurse and had working experience as a nurse was involved sexually with the coaccused. However, it is prima facie difficult to believe that the prosecutrix did not understand the difference between the sonography and MTP especially when she is working as a trained nurse. Hence, I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i) Applications are allowed.

¶30

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount.

¶31

(iii) The applicants/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶32

(iv) The applicants/accused shall attend the concerned police station on 22^nd September, 2014 and 29^th September,

¶33

2014 between 11 a.m. to 12 noon and thereafter as and

¶34

when called by the police till the filing of the charge sheet.

¶35

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶36

3 of 3

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhangi Sambhaji Tikode 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Namdev Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sovind Nathuji Chandewar Vs Miss. Ketki Sovind Chandewar and Anr.

Majidkhan Khalilkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Suryabhan Nandurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Pandurang Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra