Dismissed

Ramdas Gulab Khavale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Aug 2014APPA/645/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application by Ramdas Gulab Khavale, convicted of rape under Section 376(2)(c) IPC for 10 years. The applicant argued consent existed due to a past relationship, despite the prosecutrix being a minor in a residential school. The court rejected the bail application, citing the nature of the offence and the applicant's failure to inspire confidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected with liberty to move fresh application after five years.

Ramdas Gulab Khavale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

920 APPA 645 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2014 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393 OF 2014

¶5

Ramdas Gulab Khavale .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Vaibhav R. Chaikwad, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 22^nd August, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Application is moved for bail as the applicant is convicted for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(c) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default suffer R.I. for one year, by the judgment and order dated 3^rd April, 2014, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant convict submitted that the learned trial Judge has observed that the age of the prosecutrix

¶12

Page No.1 of 3

¶13

920 APPA 645 OF 2014

¶14

was more than 16 years. However, he has been punished under Section 376 (2) (c) as he was working as cook and the girl was studying in residential school. He submitted that from

¶15

the evidence of PW.1 Sujata, the

¶16

Superintendent of the school, P. W.4 Watchman and also from other witnesses, it is clear that the girl had given consent for the sexual intercourse when she was caught, was in the cabin of applicant accused in the mid-night. He submitted that there was affair between the applicant accused and the prosecutrix and no force was administered by the applicant

¶17

convict on her. He submitted that the applicant was arrested on 18.11.2012 and he is

¶18

in the prison since last two years.

¶19

The learned APP opposed the application. She submitted that the girl was

¶20

in IXth STD when the incident was taken place.

¶21

She pointed out the relevant portions in the judgment in respect of appreciation of medical

Page No.2 of 3

920 APPA 645 OF 2014

evidence.

The applicant accused was working as cook in the said residential school and the girl was studying in the same school in IXth STD. He is convicted under Section 376 (2) (c) of IPC. He was not on bail and is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years. Hence application is rejected with liberty to move fresh application after five years. However, the appeal can be taken up for final hearing in the II nd seek of January, 2015. Private paper-book allowed.

¶26

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶27

Page No.3 of 3

Ramdas Gulab Khavale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Gulab Khavale 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

Prashant Popat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Puja Prashant Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaso @ Tatya Appaso Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Bhiwa Jadhvar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Rajaram Desai and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anandrao Hari Desai (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra