Dismissed

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Apr 2017APEAL/109/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Bombay rejected an appeal seeking anticipatory bail. The court held that the FIR alleged rape by the appellant on a Scheduled Tribe complainant, attracting Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus refused bail to ensure a fair investigation.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the order dated 30th January 2017; appeal dismissed.

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

¶2

¶3

mnm

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2017

¶6

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis ...Appellant Age: 43 years, Occ: service, R/of: Flat No.4, Ganga-Parwati Tower, Akshay Co-op. Hsg. Society, Shivaji Nagar, Sinnar, Tal: Sinnar, Dist: Nashik. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent (At the instance of the P.I. - Wavi Police Station, Nashik)

¶7

Mr. Aniket U. Nikam, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H.J. Dedia, A.P.P. for the State

¶8

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :12^TH APRIL, 2017

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant original accused and

¶11

learned A.P. P. for the State.

¶12

This Appeal is directed against the order dated 30^th January,

¶13

2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Nasik in

¶14

2 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

¶15

Criminal Mis. (Bail) Application No.31 of 2017 preferred by the Appellant seeking anticipatory bail. By the said order the application for anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

¶16

The Complainant was working as a Superintendent in the Educational Institution where the Appellant was working as the Principal. The Complainant has stated about separate incidents of rape committed on her by the Appellant. The incidents took place on 31^st August, 2015, 16^th September, 2015, 6^th December 2015 and 13^th December, 2015. She has stated in detail about the incidents of rape.

¶17

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that though

¶18

the last incident of rape is dated 13^th December, 2015 the F.I.R. was lodged on 3^rd January, 2017, which shows that it was lodged belatedly by the Complainant by way of afterthought. He further submitted that there were complaints regarding the behaviour of the Complainant with students as well as on other facts. The Appellant had written many letters to the Complainant in relation

¶19

to these complaints. These complaints were even prior to the first

¶20

3 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

¶21

incident of rape. He further submitted that the Complainant was terminated on 15^th December, 2016 and as a counterblast the Complainant has lodged this F.I.R. against the Appellant. As far as this contention is concerned it is the defence of the Appellant and he would have to prove it at the time of trial. These letters are not part of the investigation papers. At this stage on reading the F.I.R. it clearly shows that the Appellant committed rape on the complainant. It appears that after every incident of rape the Complainant kept quiet because the Appellant used to threaten her that she should keep quiet and not tell any one otherwise she will loose her job. It appears that on account of this threat of loosing job the Complainant kept quiet. However, once, she was removed from the job she was no longer under threat of losing job, hence, she lodged F.I.R.

¶22

As stated earlier the F.I.R. clearly shows that the Appellant committed rape on the Complainant. In the F.I.R., the Complainant has stated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe whereas the accused belongs to Maratha caste, hence the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will be attracted. In view

¶23

4 Cr.Appeal.109/2017(901)

¶24

of the allegations in the F.I.R. Section 18 of the Act would come into

¶25

play and hence anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶26

We are also of the opinion that the Investigating Agency should be given a fair chance to investigate which may not be possible if the Appellant is granted anticipatory bail.

¶27

In view of the above facts we are not inclined to grant

¶28

Anticipatory bail. Appeal is dismissed.

¶29

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Supdu Kapadnis 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

Commissionr, Kendriya Vidyalalya Sangathan and Ors. Vs K. Tiwari and Ors.

Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs Smt. Supriya Dali and Ors.

The Commissioner, Kvs and Anr. Vs Suchitra Dhar and 29 Ors.

Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Digambar Gavali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Dayanand Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.