Allowed

Dnyaneshwar S/O Balasaheb Pakhare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016APPLN/3898/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail. Confirming an interim order, the court granted bail to an accused facing charges of rape and related offences, noting DNA test results excluded him as the father of the prosecutrix's child and indicated potential suppression of facts in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order dated 01.08.2016 confirmed on same terms and conditions with specific undertakings.

Dnyaneshwar S/O Balasaheb Pakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 ) cria3898.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3898 OF 2016

¶4

Dnyaneshwar s/o. Balasaheb Pakhare..Applicant
Age. 22 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Dadegaon (New), Post Chagatpuri,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J. DATED : 20.10.2016

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.The applicant/accused in Crime No.234 of 2016
registered with Paithan Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad
for offences punishable under sections 376, 417, 504, 506
of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(v), 3 (i) (xi), 3
(1) (xii) and 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by this
application is seeking his release on bail, in the event
of his arrest in the said crime.

¶12

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant/accused.
He argued that in the F.I.R. lodged by the prosecutrix,
the fact that she is a married woman is conveniently

¶13

( 2 ) cria3898.16

¶14

suppressed by her. Learned Counsel for the applicant
sought leave to produce marriage certificate of the
prosecutrix on record. Leave granted. Learned Counsel
further argued that a child was born out of this wed-lock
and the applicant was in no way concerned with the
pregnancy of the prosecutrix.

¶15

3.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application by
contending that in such case of sexual offence, version
of the prosecutrix will have to be believed and she has
categorically stated that because of rape by the
applicant, she became pregnant.

¶16

4.Perused papers of investigation as well as
certificate placed on record by the applicant. The Dy.
Sarpanch of the village has certified that the
prosecutrix married one Tatyaba Bhosale on 13.02.2015.
Statements of witnesses recorded by the investigator also
show that the prosecutrix is a married woman. In this
context suppression of this fact in the F.I.R. by the
prosecutrix assumes importance. The prosecutrix has
stated that only because of sexual relations with the
applicant, she became pregnant. The prosecutrix, as seen
from papers of investigation is aged about 19-20 years.
The F.I.R. itself indicates the case of consensual sex if
the same is believed as it is.

¶17

5.It is seen that pursuant to order passed by this
Court, there was DNA test and in that test, it is
reported that the applicant is excluded to be a
biological father of the child delivered by the
prosecutrix. Perusal of papers of investigation prima
facie does not reflect any offence punishable under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶18

6.With this material, I see no reason not to
confirm the interim order passed by this Court way back
on 01.08.2016. Therefore, the order :-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

i.The application is allowed.

¶21

ii.The interim order dated 01.08.2016
granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the
applicant is confirmed on same terms and
conditions.

¶22

iii.In addition, as a condition of this
order, the applicant shall not extend any
threat, inducement or promise to the persons

¶23

acquainted with the facts of the accusation so
as to dissuade them from disclosing the same
either to the police to the Court.

¶24

iv.The applicant shall not tamper the
evidence of the prosecution.

¶25

v.The applicant shall attend the
concerned police station as and when reasonably
called for the purpose of investigation and co-
operate the investigator.

¶26

snk/2016/OCT16/ cria3898.16

Dnyaneshwar S/O Balasaheb Pakhare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar S/O Balasaheb Pakhare 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

Manoj S/O Mukinda Kirtane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Akbar S/O Shaikh Akhtar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanif S/O Ibrahim Pathan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Megha W/O Nandkishor Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun S/O Raman More and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Madhavrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra