Allowed

Satish Goraknath Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Mar 2014APPLN/1306/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad allowed bail to the accused in a rape case after finding discrepancies in the prosecution case regarding the timeline of electric supply and the prosecutrix visiting the field at night.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/-, one surety, prohibition from visiting specific area, and mandatory presence at police station.

Satish Goraknath Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 1306 of 2014

¶3

Satish s/o. Gorakhnath Sanap, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Mahasangavi, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. .. Applicant.

¶4

versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Patoda Police Station, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. R.G. Hange, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶6

Mr. P.P. More, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.

¶7

CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

¶8

DATE : 20TH MARCH 2014

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This is an application for grant of bail by the accused

¶11

(2)

¶12

involved in C.R. No. 215/2013, registered by Patoda Police Station (District : Beed), for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard Mr. R.G. Hange, learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. P.P. More, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that, Dwarka, the prosecutrix, aged 30 years, was residing alone in her house at Sanap Vasti Mahasangvi Shivar (Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed), while her husband was working as Driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, at Raigad. It is the case of the prosecution, as revealed from the report lodged by the prosecutrix, that on 15-12-2013, her husband left, and on 16-12-2013, as there was load shedding up to 8 p.m., she thereafter visited the field for putting on electric pump on which valve was situated in the field of accused. It is further case of the prosecution that, when she was in the field, accused, who is cousin of husband of prosecutrix, forcibly took her in the nearby sweet corn crop and committed rape on her. It is further case of the prosecution that, as there was nobody in her house present, she did not disclose the incident to anybody.

¶15

The prosecutrix has further stated in her report that, on the following day i.e. 17-12-2013, again she went in the field of the applicant for putting on the valve in the night hours, on which day also, she was subjected to rape. She has again stated about the same act which are alleged to have occurred on 18-12-2013. Thus, according to the prosecutrix, from 16-12-2013 to 18-12-2013, she was subjected to rape by the applicant.

¶16

(3)

¶17

However, she had not disclosed it to anyone.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application by referring to further contents of the FIR, according to which, husband of the prosecutrix came home on 20-12-2013. However, the prosecutrix did not disclose him anything about the incident due to fear, and also because the applicant was threatening her. It is further pointed out by the prosecution that, the applicant had caught hold of the prosecutrix while she was alone, which fact was seen by the husband of the prosecutrix and when he enquired with his wife, upon which, she disclosed her husband about the incident of rape. On learning about the incident, he went to Police Station, however, without filing report, returned back. It is the case of the prosecution that, the applicant on learning about husband of the prosecutrix to have visited the Police Station for lodging report, came home, extended threats to the prosecutrix and assaulted her by stick, who was rescued by her husband.

¶19

The prosecution, in support of above facts, has referred to the medical examination report of the prosecutrix dated 23-12-2013, according to which, the sexual assault is alleged to have been committed by some unknown persons. Considering the age of the prosecutrix who is of 30 years, a married woman, the medical report is not in favour of the prosecution. Except for having mentioned therein, injuries on the body of the prosecutrix in the form of contusion on left elbow, admeasuring 2 cm X 3 cm; and abrasion on left thigh admeasuring 4 cm X 5 cm. Moreover, there is nothing on record to establish that the above injuries are possible by stick. On the contrary, the fact of the prosecutrix visiting the field of

¶20

(4)

¶21

the applicant, to open valve of the electric pump, prima facie, establish that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

¶22

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also opposed the application on the ground that the applicant, if released on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the evidence and about his extending threats to the prosecutrix.

¶23

Considering the facts as above, and though from the report it is contended by the prosecutrix that, she was required to visit field of the applicant in the night after 8.00 p.m., when the electric supply was restored. It is material to note that from one of the documents filed with the charge sheet it reveals that on all the dates i.e. on 16th, 17th and 18th December 2013, load shedding at Sanap Vasti Mahasangvi Shivar was from 6.00 a.m. to 12.00 in the noon, and the electric supply was available thereafter uptill 10.00 p.m. Above document filed with the charge sheet, thus, prima facie establish availability of electric supply. In the circumstances, there is nothing to establish why prosecutrix was visiting the field of applicant in late night.

¶24

Having considered above facts, it is found that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶25

9. The Application is allowed.

¶26

The applicant, Satish s/o. Gorakhnath Sanap, shall be released on bail, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty

¶27

five thousand) with one surety in the like amount.

¶28

On being released on bail, the applicant shall not visit at Sanap Vasti Mahasangvi Shivar (Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed), during the pendency of trial.

¶29

The applicant, while on bail, shall mark his presence at Patoda Police Station on 15th day of each month initially for a period of three months, and thereafter, on first day of each month during the pendency of trial.

¶30

In the event, the applicant contravenes any of the conditions, bail shall be subject to cancellation on prosecution moving for cancellation of bail.

¶31

( P.N. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE

¶32

bgp/1306CrA

Satish Goraknath Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Goraknath Sanap 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sakharam Walmik Bhopale

Siddharth Narayan Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Dnyanoba Borade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Mah Vs Dagadu Sampatrao Deshmukh and Anr.

Latabai Dinkar Sonawane Vs the State of Mah

Vaijnath Ramrao Phad Vs Dadasaheb Maroti Deokar