Dismissed

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014BA/1244/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Bail Application rejected in a rape case filed under various sections of IPC and POCSO. The learned Single Judge held that given the nature of the charge and impending trial with key witnesses, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; liberty granted to file fresh bail application after recording of evidence or within three months.

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

27 BA 1244 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1244 OF 2014.

¶4

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi.. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale , for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 9^th September, 2014

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Application is moved for bail as the

¶9

applicant accused Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi, is arrested in connection with offence punishable under 120(B), 376(2)(i), 354(a), 370(a), 372, 373, 292, 506, read with section

¶10

34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(f)(6), 7/8b, 71(3)/12 of of Protection of

¶11

Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

¶12

section 3, 4, 5, and 9 of Immoral

¶13

Traffic(Prevention) Act, which is registered at C.R.No.45 of 2014, at Ratnagiri City Police

¶14

Page No.1 of 5

¶15

27 BA 1244 OF 2014

¶16

Station, Ratnagiri. The prosecutrix who was 14 years, resident of Ratnagiri, has reported about the offence to the police that she alongwith her sister used to visit the house

¶17

of principal accused Swati Thakur. On

¶18

frequent visits of the prosecutrix to the house of principal accused Swati Thakur, she, by sweet talks, with the prosecutrix gained

¶19

confidence in her. Principal accused Swati Thakur and co-accused Rajaram Sawant started offering her beer. She developed liking of beer as she used to get tips. Swati Thakur introduced her to one of the co-accused Sushil Mandavkar. Both of them used to show her porn films and Mandavkar had sexual intercourse

¶20

with her and also threatened her if at all she would tell this fact to anybody, she will be defamed. Swati Thakur also told her that she is taking money from the persons who are going

¶21

to have sexual intercourse with her. Swati

¶22

Thakur told her that she is collecting money

¶23

Page No.2 of 5

¶24

27 BA 1244 OF 2014

¶25

for the marriage of th victim. Therefore, she did not tell anything about the incidence to anybody. Swati Thakur thereafter introduced the co-accused No.3 and present applicant accused No 4 and accused No. 5 and also other co-accused. The accused No.4 Prakash @ Balu

¶26

Salvi had raped the prosecutrix on 28^th February, 2014. It is the case of the victim that in between the other accused persons and

¶27

Sushil Mandavkar had sexually abused her though she was not ready for the same. This is how for number of times, she was raped by the co-accused persons and this was all pioneered by the principal accused Swati Thakur.

¶28

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶29

accused has submitted that the test

¶30

identification of this applicant accused No.4 Balu @ Prakash Salvi is doubtful as it is difficult for the victim to remember this person. The applicant accused when produced

¶31

without any veil in the Court, it was possible

¶32

Page No.3 of 5

¶33

27 BA 1244 OF 2014

¶34

for the prosecutrix to identify the applicant accused prior to test identification parade

¶35

which was held on 29^th March,2014. He has

¶36

further submitted that the applicant has no antecedents. He is not 35 to 40 years old. He

¶37

is approximately 50 to 55 years of age. The statements of the prosecutrix cannot be believed as there is no corroboration.

¶38

application. She submitted that the victim has taken the name of applicant and stated that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly on 28^th February, 2014 at 12.00 p.m. She submitted that the charge is framed on 28.8.2014 and now the matter is

¶39

fixed for hearing tomorrow on 10.9.2014 and the evidence of victim is going to be recorded.

¶40

On perusal of the F.I.R., it is found

¶41

that specific allegations are made against applicant accused that he raped her on 28^th

¶42

Page No.4 of 5

¶43

February, 2014. What importance is to be given

¶44

to test identification parade and the

¶45

identification of the applicant by the victim

¶46

is appreciation of testimony of the

¶47

prosecutrix. At this stage a particular role

¶48

is attributed to the applicant accused i.e. he

¶49

has raped her on 28^th February, 2014. Trial is

¶50

about to start. It is necessary that the

¶51

evidence of prosecutrix, her sister and her

¶52

father is to be recorded. Under such

¶53

circumstances, I am not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicant. Application is

¶54

rejected. However, liberty to file Bail Application afresh after recording of evidence of the prosecutrix, her sister and father or

¶55

after three months from today whichever event occurs earlier is given to applicant. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge would endeavour to

¶56

record evidence without keeping any gap.

¶57

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶58

Page No.5 of 5

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi 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

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajaram Gopinath Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Anant Shetye Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra