Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Namdeorao Ingale

Bombay HC2 May 2017APPLN/1239/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed by the State to cancel bail granted to the respondent accused under Section 376 IPC. The accused allegedly threatened the prosecutrix post-bail. The High Court rejected the cancellation prayer due to lack of urgency and procedural delays but imposed a restriction barring the accused from entering the prosecutrix's village.

What did the court decide?

Bail cancellation application rejected; respondent ordered not to enter the village of the prosecutrix pending trial.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjay Namdeorao Ingale — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) cria1239.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1239 OF 2017

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjay Namdeorao Ingale..Respondent

¶8

Mr.S.D. Ghayal, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.G.P. Shinde, Advocate for sole respondent.

¶9

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE,J.
DATED :02.05.2017

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1.The application is filed for cancellation of

¶12

bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in
Misc. Criminal Application No.302 of 2016 on 26.05.2016.
Both the sides are heard.

¶13

2.The application is made on the ground that after
release on bail of the present respondent for offence
punishable under section 376 etc. of the Indian Penal
Code, he gave threats to the prosecutrix and due to that
apprehension is created in the mind of the prosecutrix

¶14

and that conduct amounts to tampering with the

¶15

prosecution witnesses. O.M.C.Application No.86 of 2016

¶16

was filed for cancellation of bail before the Sessions

¶17

Court, Nanded. But the Sessions Court has rejected the
application by holding that delay was caused in giving

¶18

the report. This Court has carefully gone through the
allegations made in the F.I.R. When the report was

¶19

given, the prosecutrix had completed 21 years of age.
She made allegations that for many years, the respondent,

¶20

who was taking tuitions had physical relations with her.

¶21

The prosecutrix became pregnant for two times. On both
the times the pregnancy was terminated behind the back of

¶22

the parents of the prosecutrix. It is her contention that

¶23

when she wanted to live separate life and to break the
relationship, the respondent insisted for continuation of

¶24

the relationship and due to that she was required to
approach the police. All these circumstances are

¶25

considered while granting bail. The copies of two N.C.

¶26

reports are not produced on record. Whenever bail is

¶27

granted, generally such attempts are made by the

¶28

complainant's side to pressurize the accused. This Court
has carefully gone through the reasonings given by the
Sessions while rejecting the application for cancellation
of bail.

¶29

3.In view of the circumstances of the present
matter, this Court holds that it is not desirable to
cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent. The
application stands rejected. However, the respondent is
not to enter the village of the prosecutrix till disposal
of the case filed against him.

¶30

snk/2017/MAY17/ cria1239.17

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Namdeorao Ingale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Namdeorao Ingale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivdas S/O. Waman Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendrasingh @ Chotu Babusingh Girase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagyashree Govind Mokate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tukaram Kashiram Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Mahadu Bhutkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Namdev Ghope Vs the State of Maharashtra