Dismissed

Vishal S/O Mahadeo Bhagwat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2016APPLN/104/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for bail was dismissed as the trial was near conclusion. The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and conclude the case within three months. The applicant was charged under IPC and POCSO for assaulting laborers from the Bhill community.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; trial to be expedited and concluded within 3 months.

Vishal S/O Mahadeo Bhagwat Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cri. Appln. 104-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2016

¶4

Vishal S/o Mahadeo Bhagwat,
Age Major, Occu. Education,
R/o Sugaon, Tal. Ambajogai,
Dist. Beed

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Bardapur,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

.....

¶10

Mr. A.R. Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. U.S. Mote, APP for the respondent-State

¶11

......

¶12

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATED : 15/04/2016

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

2.The present applicant, who is arrested by

¶16

Bardapur Police Station, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed in

¶17

Crime no. 6 of 2015 for the offences punishable under

¶18

section 376(D), 342, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

¶19

and under section 4, 18 of the Protection of Children

¶20

from Sexual Offences Act and under section 3(1)(11)

¶21

2 Cri. Appln. 104-2016

¶22

(12), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is praying for
his release on bail.

¶23

3.The complaint as well as the statement of the
witnesses would show that the victim of the offence and
her family members belong to the Bhill community. They
were labours working on sugar-cane cutting at various
places. Since some of the members of the group had ran

¶24

away from the job to Madhya Pradesh, the present
applicant as well as his co-accused beat the victim and
her brother. In the circumstances, while some of the
co-accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse
with the victim, the present applicant alongwith
another co-accused had confined the victim and her
family members in a room and had beaten the victim and
other labours. After their release on 17/01/2015, the
complaint came to be filed.

¶25

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
in-fact, the Sessions Judge has framed the charge
against the present applicant for the offences

¶26

3 Cri. Appln. 104-2016

¶27

punishable under section 342 r/w. 34, 323 r/w. 34 and
506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as the present
applicant allegedly was not involved in the alleged
offence of rape and also as the present applicant also
belongs to scheduled tribe community, the offences
punishable under section 3(1)(11)(12), 3(2)(5) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act would not be applicable. He submits
that the applicant is behind the bar since 24/01/2015
and therefore he be released on bail.

¶28

5.Learned A.P.P. on the other hand pointed out

¶29

that all other witnesses have been examined and the
deposition of the Investigating Officer has only to be
recorded. The trial may conclude within a period of
three months. In the circumstances, he submits that
finding that present applicant was involved in
facilitating the commission of other offences, as
detailed supra, he may not be released on bail.

¶30

6.Upon hearing both sides, in my view, since the
trial is at the fag end, considering the nature of the

¶31

4 Cri. Appln. 104-2016

¶32

allegations, the applicant cannot be released on bail,
however, finding that the trial is at the fag end, it

¶33

is necessary to direct that the trial be expedited.

¶34

In the circumstances, the following order:-

¶35

7.The Application is hereby dismissed. The
learned Sessions Judge is requested to expedite the
hearing in the Sessions Case and conclude the same as
far as possible, within a period of three (3) months.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

arp/-

Vishal S/O Mahadeo Bhagwat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal S/O Mahadeo Bhagwat 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

Sangita @ Savita W/O Laxman Solanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Patting Kisanrao Gadadhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman S/O Lalsing Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok S/O Shivaji Mhaske Vs Ashok S/O Anaji Wakchaure and Anr.

Nanasaheb S/O Saloba Sarode Vs Thes Tate of Maharashtra