The applicant sought anticipatory bail in cases involving dowry and unnatural sex charges by sexual assault survivors. The High Court rejected the application, holding that custodial interrogation is necessary given the heinous nature of the alleged offences.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed; custodial interrogation required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1525 OF 2016
Prashant S/o Ganesh Gawai
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Private Service,
Residing at 160, Pethe Nagar,
Bhavsingpura,
Tq. and District Aurangabad.. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Police Station, Cantonment
(Chavni), Aurangabad.. Respondent
Mr. A.S. Shejwal, Advocate with Mr. P.P. Khandagale Patil,
Advocate for the applicant
Mr. U.S. Mote, A.P.P. for the respondent-State
Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for assist to A.P.P.
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 05/04/2016
PRONOUNCED ON: 07/04/2016
ORDER :
Heard both sides.
2.The present applicant, who is apprehending
arrest at the hands of Cantonment (Chavani) Police
Station, Dist. Aurangabad in crime no. 32 of 2016 for
the offences punishable under section 498-A, 406, 377
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is praying for his
release on bail, in the event of his arrest.
2 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
3.The complaint of his wife dated 25/01/2016
would show that she married with the present applicant
on 08/09/2013 after accepting the proposal, as was
found on the website “Shaadi.com”.
.The applicant was serving at Gurgaon in the
State of Haryana and is permanent resident of
Aurangabad. Before 10 days of the marriage, her father
paid hand-loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to her father-in-law.
On 28/08/2013, her father has also credited an amount
of Rs.49,500/- in the account of her father-in-law and
an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid in cash. Her father-
in-law agreed to repay the said amount, however, the
same was not repaid. Ultimately, it was told that the
said amount is appropriated towards the dowry and also
made a demand of additional amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, as
dowry. As all this took place before the solemnization
of the marriage, the complainant's father was required
to accept the same. Gold ornaments were gifted in the
marriage.
.After the marriage, she resided with the
applicant from 08/09/2013 till 15/09/2013 at
3 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
Aurangabad. During that period, however, the present
applicant had forced her to have oral sex. He used to
use sex toys. He was also indulging in anal fingering.
Not only this, he as well as his family members started
making demand of balance of the dowry amount and used
to suspect her character. They used to beat her.
.In the circumstances, on 15/09/2013, she
accompanied the applicant to Gurgaon. After a short
period of honeymoon in Maldiv, they continued to reside
at Gurgaon, however, the ill-treatment continued.
Demand of dowry amount also continued. Applicant used
to collect video of homosexual activities on his
laptop. He was not interested in normal sexual
intercourse. He also forced her to have drink and,
thereafter, make unnatural sex with her. In the
circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
4.During the course of hearing of the present
application, the complainant appeared and filed
application (Cr. Application No. 1629 of 2016) for
assisting the A.P.P.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
4 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
in-fact, after the present applicant filed divorce
proceedings, false allegations are made and the
complaint is filed after inordinate delay of 2 years.
The complainant was in United States of America for a
period of two years preceding the marriage and she had
an affair with one person. She always used to compare
the applicant with the said boyfriend in respect of the
financial status and harass the applicant. She was
insisting on settling in U.S.A. Ultimately, the
applicant was required to file a divorce petition.
Thereafter, the complainant filed her complaint with
the Women Grievance Cell at Nagpur on 25/01/2014 and
also a private complaint with the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Nagpur on 06/02/2014. In the
said complaint, the complainant has not made
allegations of any forcible unnatural sex. For a
period of more than two years, there is no cohabitation
between the parties and considering the fact that false
and fabricated complaint is filed with inordinate
delay, the application be allowed and the applicant be
released on anticipatory bail.
5 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
6.On the other hand, Mr. Bayas, learned counsel
assisting the A.P.P. submits that the complainant did
not thought it fit to disclose the unnatural behaviour
of the applicant earlier, considering the fact of talk
of settlement between the parties was possible,
however, due to filing of the divorce petition by the
applicant, everything became clear. On 31/03/2014, she
had sent a FIR to the Police Commissioner, Gurgaon
(Copy of the same is filed at Exhibit “I-5” by the
applicant himself), wherein the complaint about the
unnatural sex and compulsion to have the drink during
the sex are made besides the other complaints. In the
circumstances, it was submitted that since the
applicant has committed heinous crime punishable under
section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the wish
of the complainant, the applicant may not be released
on anticipatory bail.
7.Learned counsel for the applicant filed
written notes of arguments on record, in which he
submits that in-fact, the complainant has orally stated
before this Court that the video recording of the
commission of the crime would be filed. In-fact, what
6 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
the complainant has stated is that the applicant used
to get the photographs and video-graphs of such acts.
8.Upon hearing both sides, it is clear that in
the complaint dated 25/01/2014 with the Women Grievance
Cell at Nagpur, the complainant has not made any
grievance of having unnatural sex. However, in the
complaint sent to the Police Commissioner of Gurgaon,
Haryana, dated 31/03/2014, the said complaint is made.
(There is a factual dispute as to whose absence
entailed into closure of the said complaint by Women
Grievance Cell at Nagpur.) Therefore, it can not be
said that for the first time, in the present complaint
with the Cantonment (Chavani) Police Station,
Aurangabad, such complaints are made.
9.At this stage, neither the allegations of the
applicant that the complainant was having extra marital
relations nor the complaint of the complainant, that
she was forced to have unnatural sex with the
applicant, can be commented with confidence, as
investigation is yet to be made. However, finding that
the complainant from time to time has made similar
7 Cr. Appln. 1525-2016+
complaints, in my view, considering the nature of the
offence, the custodial interrogation of the present
applicant would be required.
10. In the circumstances, the following order:-
11. The Application is hereby dismissed.
[M.T. JOSHI]
JUDGE
arp/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest for dowry and unnatural sex offences, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
PRASHANT
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court