Allowed

Sushant Ramesh Dubey v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Nov 2014BA/1996/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, arrested for an alleged rape of a minor, was in jail for over a year. The court noted the investigation was completed and that possibilities of an intimacy or proposal of marriage raised doubt. Bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on furnishing a Personal Bond and two sureties, with a direction not to tamper with evidence.

Sushant Ramesh Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

911.ba1996.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1996 OF 2014

¶5

Sushant Ramesh Dubey. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Abhishek Yende, advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.

¶11

2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 28/7/2013 in Crime No. 254 of 2013 registered at Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 21st October, 2013.

Talwalkar

1/4

2 911.ba1996.14.sxw

3 It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant was working as receptionist in Motor Training School of mother of the applicant. That the mother of the applicant had requested the complainant to send her minor daughter to help her in carrying out domestic cores as she was ill. Her minor daughter /victim had then started working with the mother of the applicant as a domestic help. It is alleged that on 28/7/2014, the complainant had been to meet her daughter at the house of the mother of the applicant and at that time, the victim girl had disclosed that four months' prior to the said date the present applicant had ravished her. After she disclosed about the incident to the mother of the applicant, mother of the applicant had threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody or else her parents would be exposed to social obloquy. It is further alleged that the victim girl was not allowed to have contact with anybody and therefore, she could not disclose it earlier. On the basis of her report Crime No. 254 of 2013 was registered.

¶16

4 Statement of the victim was recorded. She had disclosed before

¶17

the Child Welfare Committee at Thane that in the month of January,

Talwalkar

2/4

3 911.ba1996.14.sxw

she had been ravished by the present applicant. She has further disclosed that the mother of the applicant was aware about it and she wanted the victim to get married to the applicant. Since the victim happens to be minor, her parents refused the proposal of marriage. The ossification test also shows that the victim girl was about 15 to 16 years of age at the time of incident.

¶22

5 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in jail for more than one year i.e. almost for 16 months and he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶23

6 The victim and her mother are also present in the court. Upon enquiry made by the Investigating Officer, the mother has admitted that there was a proposal of marriage. In view of the fact that the applicant is also a young boy of 19 years old and possibility of some intimacy cannot be ruled out and that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶24

7 In view of the above circumstances, following order is passed:

Talwalkar

3/4

911.ba1996.14.sxw

ORDER

(i) The application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶32

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶33

8 The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶35

Talwalkar

¶36

4/4

Sushant Ramesh Dubey v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushant Ramesh Dubey 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr Shivaji Sadashiv Mane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Ujma Atik Patel

Karen Raghunathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahavir Chaturbhan Narvate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arul Raypanna Nathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vanitha F. Castelino Vs the State of Maharashtra