Dismissed

Jitendra Anant Shetye v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014BA/1308/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed the bail application of an accused charged with offences under POCSO and IPC. The court rejected the plea due to non-bailable nature of charges. Liberty granted to file fresh application after recording evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; liberty to file bail application afresh after recording of victim's evidence or after three months.

Jitendra Anant Shetye Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1308 OF 2014.

¶4

Jitendra Anant Shetye .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Prashant M. Patil, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 9^th September, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Application is moved for bail as the applicant accused Jitendra A. Shetye, is arrested in connection with offence punishable under 120(B), 376(2)(i), 354(a), 370(a), 372, 373, 292, 506, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(f)(6), 7/8b, 71(3)/12 of of Protection of Child From

¶10

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 3, 4, 5,

¶11

and 9 of Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act,

¶12

which is registered at C.R.No.45 of 2014, at

¶13

Ratnagiri City Police Station, Ratnagiri. The

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

¶16

prosecutrix who was 14 years, resident of

¶17

Ratnagiri, has reported about the offence to

¶18

the police that she alongwith her sister used to visit the house of principal accused Swati Thakur. On frequent visits of the prosecutrix

¶19

to the house of principal accused Swati

¶20

Thakur, she, by sweet talks, with the prosecutrix gained confidence in her.

¶21

Principal accused Swati Thakur and co-accused

¶22

Rajaram Sawant started offering her beer. She developed liking of beer as she used to get tips. Swati Thakur introduced her to one of

¶23

the co-accused Sushil Mandavkar. Both of them

¶24

used to show her porn films and Mandavkar had

¶25

sexual intercourse with her and also

¶26

threatened her if at all she would tell this fact to anybody, she will be defamed. Swati

¶27

Thakur also told her that she is taking money

¶28

from the persons who are going to have sexual

¶29

intercourse with her. Swati Thakur told her

¶30

that she is collecting money for the marriage

¶31

Page No.2 of 6

¶32

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

¶33

of the victim. Therefore, she did not tell anything about the incidence to anybody. Swati Thakur thereafter introduced the present applicant accused No.3 and accused Nos 4 and 5 and also other co-accused. As per case of the prosecutrix victim, the accused No.3 Jitendra had led some sexual advances towards her on one occasion and accused No.4 Prakash @

¶34

Balu Sadanand Salve had sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the victim that in between the other accused persons and 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-

¶35

accused persons and this was all pioneered by the principal accused Swati Thakur.

¶36

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has submitted that the police have

¶37

conducted test identification parade on 29.3.2014. However, in the panchnama dated 8.3.2014, police have mentioned that the

¶38

Page No.3 of 6

¶39

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

¶40

victim was present and applicant accused was

¶41

also present at the police station. It shows that the prosecutrix had an opportunity to see

¶42

the applicant accused prior to the test

¶43

identification parade. He submitted that the case of prosecutrix even if taken as true, the applicant accused has not committed any serious offence except offence of committing some sexual advances towards victim girl and that was also only once and not repeatedly. The learned counsel has further challenged that he is not the same Jitu which is descried while attributing role to him.

¶44

The learned APP opposed the

¶45

application. She submitted that the applicant

¶46

was having very close to principal accused Swati Thakur. The applicant has outraged the modesty of victim. She submitted that the

¶47

charge is framed on 28.8.2014 and now the

¶48

matter is fixed for hearing tomorrow on 10.9.2014 and the evidence of victim is going

Page No.4 of 6

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

to be recorded.

It appears that prior to test

¶53

identification parade on 29^th March, 2014, the panchnama dated 8.3.2014 was drawn. At that time the applicant accused and victim girl were present. The identity of the applicant accused is a matter of appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix at the time of

¶54

trial. The victim has stated in the F.I.R.

¶55

that the applicant accused has taken her to mezzanine floor. He took out her T-shirt and fondled her breast and thus, specific role is attributed to the applicant accused which shows that he has committed offence punishable under Section 354(a) and 373 of the Indian

¶56

Penal Code which are non-bailable. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicant. Application is

¶57

rejected. However, liberty to file Bail

¶58

Application afresh after recording of evidence of the prosecutrix, her sister and father or

¶59

Page No.5 of 6

¶60

27 BA 1308 OF 2014

¶61

after three months from today whichever event occurs earlier is given to applicant.

¶62

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶63

Page No.6 of 6

Jitendra Anant Shetye v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Anant Shetye 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

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajaram Gopinath Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra