Dismissed

Rupesh Parshuram Phulare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Oct 2015ABA/1584/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

It is held that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC given serious allegations and the petitioner being specifically named in the FIR; bail application rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected. Leave to amend to delete the name of the prosecutrix granted.

What the court decided

Rupesh Parshuram Phulare Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

aba.1584.15.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1584 OF 2015

¶3

Rupesh Parshuram Phulare ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶4

Ms. Priyanka Dubey i/b Mr. P. R. Yadav for the Applicant

¶5

Ms. S. D. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

¶6

ASI Mr. Salavi from Roha Police Station is present

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 21ST OCTOBER, 2015

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Leave to amend to delete the name of the prosecutrix is

¶10

granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for the State.

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 152 of 2015 registered with the Roha Police Station, Rigad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376,

1/4

SQ Pathan

aba.1584.15.doc

376(I) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3A, 4 and 5(g) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶17

The prosecutrix has alleged the aforesaid offences as against four persons, including the applicant. The prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was 16 years of age. She has alleged in her complaint dated 5^th September, 2015 that the present applicant along with other co-accused separately committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. As far as the present applicant is concerned, question Nos. 7, 8 and 12 are relevant. According to the prosecutrix, the present applicant took her on a motorcycle and committed forcible intercourse and paid her a sum of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, the applicant again took her on four other occasions and committed forcible intercourse with her. Pursuant to the forcible intercourse committed by the applicant and three other co-accused, which were independent incidents, the prosecutrix became pregnant. Infact, the prosecutrix was eight months pregnant when the complaint was lodged on 5^th September, 2015. Learned A.P.P states that the prosecutrix has delivered a child.

2/4

SQ Pathan

aba.1584.15.doc

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case. She relied on a letter dated 18^th February, 2014 sent to the Police Inspector, Roha, Raigad, wherein, the present applicant and others and other family members of the applicant had moved a representation against the villagers of Ghosale. She states that as the villagers did not want the applicant to do his business in village Ghosale, they instigated the prosecutrix to name the applicant and falsely implicate him.

¶22

Learned A.P.P vehemently opposed the bail application. She

¶23

states that all the three other co-accused have been arrested and are at present in custody. She states that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged 16 years and the applicant was a married man aged 28 years, at the relevant time.

¶24

Considering the serious allegations made against the applicant

¶25

and the fact that the applicant’s name has been specifically spelt out in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, this is not a fit case to exercise the

3/4

SQ Pathan

aba.1584.15.doc

discretion under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Application stands rejected.

¶30

If an application for regular bail is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶31

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶32

4/4

¶33

SQ Pathan

Rupesh Parshuram Phulare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rupesh Parshuram Phulare 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

Sandeep Saresh Kamble Vs Mr.Manish Haresh Milani and Anr.

Mukesh S/O. Jwalaprasad Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Pandurang Powar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratik Vilas Bobade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashinath Mahadev Parab and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Himanshu Shekhar Vs the State of Maharashtra