Allowed

Satish Narayan Gadikar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Mar 2014APPLN/1328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of offences under IPC and the Prevention of Child Sexual Violence Act. The court noted a three-month delay in FIR registration, contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, and that medical evidence did not substantiate forcible intercourse. Bail was granted with strictly limited territorial conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on securing a bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions restricting entry into village Deulwadi and requiring monthly police attendance.

Satish Narayan Gadikar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

( 1 ) cria1328.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1328 OF 2014

¶4

Satish s/o. Narayan Gadikar
Age. 22 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Deulwadi, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.

¶5

..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶8

Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH,J. DATED : 25.03.2014

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.This is an application for grant of bail in

¶12

Crime No.98 of 2013 registered for the offences
punishable under sections 376(2), 354(A), 452, 504, 506

¶13

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 and 7/8
of the Prevention of Child Sexual Violence Act,
registered by Wadwana Police Station, Tq. Udgir, Dist.
Latur.

¶14

2.Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted

¶15

that the application is liable to be allowed in view of

¶16

the fact that false F.I.R. is lodged by the prosecutrix
after three months of the alleged incident. It is also
contended that along with the applicant, his two other
brothers, namely, Santosh and Piraji are also named in
the F.I.R. Learned Sessions Court granted bail to both

¶17

the brothers of the applicant, however, has rejected the

¶18

same to the extent of the applicant. Attention of this

¶19

Court is also invited to the additional statement of the
prosecutrix and her statement recorded under section 164
of Cr.P.C. before learned Magistrate and it is contended

¶20

that both the statements are contrary to the facts in the
F.I.R. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant is
entitled for bail as even according to medical evidence,
there is nothing to establish that the prosecutrix was
subjected to the forcible intercourse.

¶21

3.Learned Counsel for the applicant has also
submitted that in the event the applicant is found

¶22

entitled to bail, he shall not enter limits of village
Deulwadi, Udgir Taluka, Dist. Latur, during the pendency
of the trial.

¶23

4.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application and
contended that the prosecutrix is a minor and F.I.R.
establishes direct involvement of the applicant. He also
stated that from the medical report, it is established
that the applicant is involved in the crime of rape. It
is, therefore, prayed that the application be rejected.

¶24

5.Admittedly, the charge-sheet is filed in this

¶25

matter before the competent Court. From the contents of
the F.I.R., it reveals that the same came to be lodged

¶26

three months after the alleged incident. The F.I.R. is
dated 23.12.2013, wherein the applicant is alleged to
have entered in the house of the prosecutrix and
subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will, by
extending threat to kill. From the contents of the

¶27

F.I.R., it further reveals that on the same night though

¶28

the prosecutrix had informed about the incident to her
father, he took no steps for a period of two days and
thereafter had informed about the incident to the parents
of the applicant. According to its contents, it further
reveals that the applicant thereafter left for Pune and
since the prosecutrix did not had her menstrual cycle,
was sent to her brother’s house at Pune and returned back
after one months.

¶29

.Second part of the F.I.R. reveals that 15 days
prior to filing of the same, brother of the applicant
Santosh forcibly committed intercourse with the
prosecutrix which incident was disclosed by the
prosecutrix to her father. However, he had not disclosed
the same to anyone.

¶30

.In the later part of the F.I.R., it is alleged

¶31

that on 22.12.2013, second brother of the applicant,

¶32

namely, Piraji also came to the house of the prosecutrix
with intention to have sexual intercourse. However, the

¶33

prosecutrix, since closed the door of the house, he went
away.

¶34

6.Considering the contents of the F.I.R., thus, it
reveals that for a period of three months, no F.I.R. was
lodged in spite of prosecutrix disclosing about the
incident of alleged rape on her on the day of incident
itself to her father.

¶35

7.Though in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the
prosecutrix since missed her menstrual cycle, was sent to
her brother’s house at Pune, in her additional statement,
she has given complete go-bye to her earlier statement
saying that no treatment was obtained by her while at
Pune, but she had been to her brother’s house at Pune for
Diwali festival and returned back on staying for four
days there.

¶36

.In her statement recorded before the Magistrate,
the prosecutrix had come out with another new theory

¶37

contending that she is having love affair with the
applicant and wanted to marry him and when she asked the
applicant, when they would be marrying, the applicant
since left to Pune, she got annoyed and therefore lodged
report against him. Her statement further reveals that
she wanted to marry the applicant on her attaining 18
years of age.

¶38

8.Considering the F.I.R. additional statements of

¶39

the prosecutrix, it reveals that she is disclosing
different facts in all these statements. It is,
therefore, difficult to rely upon any of her versions as
referred in her report or in subsequent recorded
statements, during the course of the investigation. The

¶40

medical report, in-fact, goes against the prosecution
wherein it certified that the prosecutrix, who is of 14

¶41

to 17 years of age is found having her hymen old

¶42

ruptured, nor she is found to have sustained any injury
on her private part or any part of her body. It further

¶43

certifies that the prosecutrix was at no point of time

¶44

pregnant or had aborted pregnancy. The above medical
report also, prima facie, negativates contents of the
F.I.R.

¶45

9.Having considered the facts as above and as the
charge-sheet is already filed, in view of the statement
made that the applicant in the event if is found entitled
for bail, shall not enter village Deulwadi, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur, I find the applicant to be entitled for bail
by imposing suitable conditions as per the order below :-

¶46

10.Applicant – Satish s/o. Narayan Gadikar shall be
released on bail on his executing P.R. bond of Rs.
15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in
like amount. Bail before the Trial Court.

¶47

.While on bail, the applicant shall not enter

¶48

territorial jurisdiction of village Deulwadi, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur and during the pendency of trial the

¶49

applicant shall mark his attendance at Wadwana Police

¶50

Station, once in three months, on the first day of each
such month.

¶51

.The applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.

¶52

.Breach of any of these conditions if brought to
the notice of this Court by the prosecution, same shall
be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶53

11.The Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶54

snk /2014/MAR14/cria1328.14

Satish Narayan Gadikar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Narayan Gadikar 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

Vaijnath Ramrao Phad Vs Dadasaheb Maroti Deokar

The State of Mah Vs Dagadu Sampatrao Deshmukh and Anr.

Satish Goraknath Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs Pradeep Diwakar Pathak and Another

Shama Bhagwan Waghode and Antoher Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrirang @ Rangiya Kashinath Naware Vs the State of Maharashtra