Dismissed

Gaitri Bhila Pawar v. Chandrakant Lotan Sevale (Patil) and Others

Bombay HC24 Sept 2014APPLN/2454/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court at Bombay considered the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents in a rape case arising from domestic violence. The applicant alleged poisoning, rape, and threats. The court rejected the application for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is rejected.

Gaitri Bhila Pawar Vs Chandrakant Lotan Sevale (Patil) and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No. 2454/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2454 OF 2013

¶5

Smt. Gaitri Bhila Pawar

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chandrakant Lotan Savale (Patil) and others

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for applicant.

¶11

Mr. K.P. Chawre, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 24th September, 2014.

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

The application is filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Both the sides are heard.

¶15

Present applicant, the prosecutrix has made allegations that on 26.8.2012 when her husband was not at home, respondent No. 2 - Smt. Vimalabai administered some substance to her with tea and due to that she became unconscious. It is her contention that when she regained

¶16

Cri. Appln. No. 2454/13

¶17

¶18

consciousness, she realized that respondent No. 2 had raped her when she was unconscious. It is her case that respondent No. 2 then told her that he had done the video shooting of the incident in his mobile and he would defame her by showing it to others and he can also finish her husband. It is her case that due to this threat, she did not disclose the incident to her husband.

¶19

It is the case of applicant/complainant that respondent No. 2 was in touch with her on mobile and due to that she was compelled to go to the places where respondent No. 2 wanted her to come. It is her case that on one occasion, her son was taken away and threat was given that he would be thrown in to well and he had raped her. She has described last incident dated 1.3.2013 and it is contended that again the respondent No. 2 came to her house and he again raped her.

¶20

It is the case of complainant that she gathered courage and she informed about the activities of respondent No. 2 to her husband on 21.3.2012 and then they decided to approach police. The report came to be given on 22.3.2012 and crime came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 376, 328, 109, 506 of I.P.C. In application bearing No. 248/2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule has

¶21

Cri. Appln. No. 2454/13

¶22

¶23

granted relief of anticipatory bail in favour of both the respondents. The delay caused in filing of report and aforesaid circumstances are considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No exception case is made out for cancellation of relief granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶24

In the result, the application is rejected.

¶25

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶26

ssc/

Gaitri Bhila Pawar v. Chandrakant Lotan Sevale (Patil) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaitri Bhila Pawar v. Chandrakant Lotan Sevale (Patil) and Others

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

Abdul Rauf Abdul Hafiz Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mandakini Shivaji Nimse Vs Santosh Ashok Kawade and Others

Mandakini Shivaji Nimse Vs Prashant Santosh Kale and Others

Manoj Chandrakant Kalburge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rangnath Bhaguji Kare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajendra S/O Jagannath Wadgane Vs the State of Maharashtra