Allowed

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014BA/1322/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Cr.P.C. regarding rape and extortion charges, the High Court allowed bail despite the serious nature of the offence due to lack of conclusive evidence and non-identification of the accused at the threshold identification parade.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing of a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties aggregating to Rs.25,000.

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1322 OF 2014

¶3

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶4

Mr. M.S. Mohite i/by Mr. Rahul M. More, for the Applicant.

¶5

Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the respondent State. Mr. dhananjayrao D. Rananware, advocate for the respondent NO.2.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 12^th September, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Application is moved for bail as the applicant accused is arrested in connection with the offence under Section 376(d) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered under C.R.No.I-20 of 2014, at Alibag Police Station. It is the case of the prosecutrix that the applicant accused was working in Government

¶10

Hospital at Alibag. The prosecutrix, her

¶11

husband and her small child went to the

¶12

Page No.1 of 4

¶13

BA 1322 OF 2014

¶14

hospital on 24.2.2014. At that time the applicant accused to whom the husband of

¶15

prosecutrix knew, met them and he told the husband of the prosecutrix to go and bring the case paper. At that time the applicant accused told the prosecutrix that the paper is not required and he took her to the second floor in the bath-room and then raped her and

¶16

threatened her not to tell anybody otherwise

¶17

he would kill her and her husband. The applicant accused is a driver on the ambulance. The learned counsel for the

¶18

applicant accused has submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant accused. Assuming that the incident has taken place, applicant accused has not committed any offence. If at all he was known to the husband of the prosecutrix, his name was disclosed on

¶19

26.2.2014 2 days after the incident by the

¶20

husband of the prosecutrix and in the supplementary statement dated 26.2.2014 of the

¶21

Page No.2 of 4

¶22

BA 1322 OF 2014

¶23

prosecutrix. He further submitted that test

¶24

the identification parade was conducted on

¶25

29.04.2014 and at the relevant time both the husband and prosecutrix did not identify the

¶26

applicant accused. The learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence against

¶27

applicant. Applicant is innocent. The

¶28

applicant was arrested on 1^st March, 2014 and he is in custody since then. He prays for bail.

¶29

application. She submitted that the accused is prosecuted for offence under Section 376(d) of IPC and it is serious offence.

¶30

Perused the F.I.R., memorandum of T.I.

¶31

parade as also the statements of prosecutrix

¶32

and her husband. It is the case of prosecution

¶33

that the husband of the prosecutrix knew the

¶34

applicant accused by face though he did not

¶35

know his name and therefore. His name was

¶36

disclosed to the police 2 days after the

¶37

Page No.3 of 4

¶38

BA 1322 OF 2014

¶39

incident. Yet at the time of T.I. parade, the applicant was not identified by the husband and the prosecutrix. Considering the nature of evidence, the application is allowed on the following terms :-

¶40

Order

¶41

I) The applicant arrested in connection with above offence be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/-.

¶42

II) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶43

III)The applicant shall attend the trial scrupulously.

¶44

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶45

Page No.4 of 4

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivesh Pravin Karlekar 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

Bhaskar Suryabhan Nandurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Pandurang Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Shahaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambadas Kashappa Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra