Allowed

Goraksh Arjun Mahakal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Oct 2014BA/1689/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a second bail application for an accused facing sexual offence charges. Noting the trial exceeds the six-month deadline for the initial bail order and is unlikely to conclude soon due to remaining witnesses, the Court enlarged the accused on bail with strict conditions regarding attendance, witness conduct, and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail with P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- and strict conditions of attendance and non-influence of witnesses.

Goraksh Arjun Mahakal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

ba.1689.14.doc

SQP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1689 OF 2014

¶5

Goraksh Arjun Mahakal ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. N. R. Tiwari for the Applicant

¶7

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State

¶8

Ms. M. B. Nerkar, PSI from Ambernath Police Station is present

¶9

CORAM:- REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (IN CHAMBERS) DATED :- OCTOBER 28, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This is the second bail application. The applicant had earlier approached this Court seeking his release on bail. Vide order dated 16^th

¶13

April, 2014, the bail application being Bail Application No. 554/2014 was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial did not conclude within six months from the date of the receipt of the said order. The earlier bail application was not considered on

1/5

SQ Pathan

ba.1689.14.doc

merits and was withdrawn by the learned Counsel for the applicant only as the trial was being expedited.

¶19

Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that despite the fact that the trial was expedited and was to conclude within six months, the trial has not concluded. He submitted that till date only the prosecutrix and the mother of the prosecutrix have been examined. He submits that the trial is not likely to conclude in the immediate near future, as there are more than seven to eight witnesses left to be examined in the said case. The said fact is not disputed by the learned A.P.P.

¶20

According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix aged about 17 years, at the relevant time, and the applicant were friends and being on friendly terms, would meet often. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that on the date of the incident i.e. 21^st December, 2013, the applicant on the pretext of marrying her, took her to a lodge and allegedly committed sexual intercourse on her. The prosecutrix thereafter informed the said incident to her mother, pursuant to which, an FIR came to be lodged by the prosecutrix on the very same day. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that

2/5

SQ Pathan

ba.1689.14.doc

the applicant has been in custody since 26^th December, 2013. He further contended that the applicant was serving as a Postman with the G.P.O at Kalwa, Thane, at the relevant time. He submits that the allegations of rape as against the applicant are false. He further contended that the applicant is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶26

The learned A.P.P opposed the application. Perused the papers. Considering the fact, that the evidence of the prosecutrix is over and the fact that the applicant has been in custody for more than ten months and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the immediate near future, I am

¶27

of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The applicant Goraksh Arjun Mahakal be released on

¶30

bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

¶31

(ii) The applicant shall attend Ambernath Police Station,

¶32

Thane, on every Saturday between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial;

3/5

SQ Pathan

ba.1689.14.doc

(iii) The applicant shall not influence, intimidate or attempt

¶38

to contact the prosecutrix or any other witness concerned with the case, directly or indirectly;

¶39

(iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the trial Court in the conduct of the trial and shall not seek any adjournment;

¶40

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking in the trial Court within one week of his release, that he will comply with the aforesaid conditions specified in clauses (ii) to (iv);

¶41

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the applicant's bail.

¶42

It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion

¶43

on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed with the case on its own merits, in accordance with law.

4/5

SQ Pathan

ba.1689.14.doc

The Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

¶49

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶50

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶51

5/5

¶52

SQ Pathan

Goraksh Arjun Mahakal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goraksh Arjun Mahakal 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

Shankar Matu Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Ramanlal Mahimtura Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Ms. Lilian Bandaa Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jagannath Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Kumar Vasudev Yadav @ Pintoo Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Alip Mohd Sayed Shaikh @ Alif Vs the State of Maharashtra