Allowed

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2014ABA/999/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Sections 376 IPC, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused facing rape and outraging modesty charges. The court noted the accused was on interim bail and accepted the proposed conditions to protect the prosecutrix and ensure investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted in the sum of Rs.25,000 with sureties on terms including police attendance and non-harassment of the prosecutrix.

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

aba99914

ybg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.999 OF 2014

¶6

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar	..	Applicant/accused
-Versus-
State of Maharashtra..	..	Respondent

¶7

Mr.Shekhar Ingawale for applicant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State Mr.Ramesh Bankar, I.O. Tasgaon Police Station present.

¶8

CORAM	: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATE	: 21 st August 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] The applicant has moved for anticipatory bail as the applicant accused is pressing the charges under section 376(2)(f), 354, 506, 342, 452 read with Indian Penal Code and the offence was registered at C.R.No.178 of 2014 at Tasgaon Police Station, District Sangli, pursuant to the report given by the prosecurtrix. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she got married one year prior to the date of the F.I.R. i.e. approximately in the month of May or June 2013. Immediately after four to five months of her marriage, co-accused who is paternal father in law Narayan Yeshwant Pawar raped her in her house and when she came out of the house thereafter, she saw her paternal brother in law Vaibhav Pawar

¶11

¶12

aba99914

¶13

standing and laughing at her. So she realised that her brother in law was aware of the incident. Then she informed about this incident to her mother in law, brother in law and husband so also she communicated this incident to her parents. However, all the family members decided to keep mum as they thought that that would be harmful to their reputation.

¶14

2] The present applicant accused was known to the family. Three months prior to the date of F.I.R., the prosecutrix along with her husband went to the house of the applicant accused. At that time, the applicant sent husband of prosecutrix to the field to work with labourers and raped her. The applicant also told the prosecutrix that he was aware of paternal father in law raping the prosecutrix earlier and he also threatened her not to tell about this incident to anybody. He also threatened her of the dire consequences. After her husband returned from the field, the prosecutrix narrated this incident to him. They informed this incident to all the relatives of the accused but did not approach police as they were scared as their reputation was at stake. However, since last one month there is continuous demand of sexual favour by the applicant – accused and co accused, the prosecutrix finally decided to report this incident to police.

¶15

3] The learned Counsel for the applicant accused has pointed out that

¶16

¶17

aba99914

¶18

there is a dispute about the land between the two families and, therefore, the prosecutrix has given false complaint against the accused He further submitted that on 30^th June 2014, the prosecutrix gave statement to the police of outraging her modesty by the applicant accused and coaccused. However, in that application, she did not mention the incident of rape. However, on the next date i.e. on 1^st July 2014, she gave an application to the police that the application given by her on 30^th June 2014 was wrongly given out of misunderstanding. But there was dispute in respect of landed property. However, they have settled the dispute between them and the said application under section 354 is to be filed. The learned Counsel further submitted that on the next date i.e. 2^nd July 2014, the prosecutrix reported about the incident of rape committed on her by the applicant accused and the other co-accused.

¶19

4] He submitted that the applicant accused has been attending police station. He was on interim bail. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions, whatever imposed, if he is protected by anticipatory bail.

¶20

5] The learned Prosecutor opposed this application. She submitted that the incident has taken place in the rural area and it was not possible for the lady to speak about the incident of rape openly. She has stated that the applicant accused has committed rape on her in his house.

¶21

¶22

aba99914

¶23

Moreover, the applicant accused and the co-accused are politically influential persons and there is continuous threat to the prosecutrix. She has been given police protection as he has asked for it.

¶24

6] Perused the the application, F.I.R. dated 2^nd July 2014 and the complaint under section 354 of IPC dated 30^th June 2014 and prosecutrix application of withdrawal of the same dated 1^st July 2014. There is a delay of three months in lodging FIR against the present applicant – accused.

¶25

7] A plight of a woman who stays in rural area can be understood. However, the prosecutrix, though approached the police on 30^th June 2014 and reported about the incident of molesting her, did not insist for reporting offence of rape. I fail to understand that when a cognisable offence was made out on 30^th June 2014, why the I.O. did not register any offence against the accused on the same date. Though the lady stated that she did not wish to prosecute the applicant – accused for the offence of rape, how and why the I.O. accepted it. I also fail to understand at this stage that why, once the lady wanted to prosecute the accused for outraging her modesty, why she did not want to file the case of rape under section 376 against the applicant – accused. The application given by her on 1^st July 2014 also is considered. In view of

¶26

5 aba99914

¶27

this, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant on the following terms and conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant is released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶29

(ii) The applicant is directed to attend the police station concerned on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 6 and 7 p.m. for one month;

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not indulge into any criminal activity while on bail;

¶31

(iv) The applicant not to pressurise the prosecutrix and her family members in any manner in respect of this offence.

¶32

(v) Application disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar 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

Mehatab Abdul Rashid Mansuri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangita Sidram Minagule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhondappa Kundalik Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Popat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Puja Prashant Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Popat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra