Allowed

Sominath S/O Sukhdeo Changhate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2017APPLN/184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application for regular bail. The applicant was facing charges under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the IPC. The court found prima facie that the offence under Section 376 (rape) was not attracted and allowed bail upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in like amount, undertaking not to influence witnesses, avoid jurisdiction, and pending charge-sheet.

Sominath S/O Sukhdeo Changhate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Cri.Appln.184/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2017

¶5

Sominath s/o Sukhdeo Changhate, Age 42 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pimarkheda, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Incharge, Waluj Taluka Gangapur District Aurangabad

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr N.K. Kakade, Advocate h/f Mr A.N. Kakade, Advocate for applicant Mr S.M. Ganachari, A.P.P. for respondent

¶11

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶12

DATE : 1^st February 2017

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

The applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No.314/2016, registered at M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

It is claimed that on 29^th November 2016, the present applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for which the first information report is lodged on 4^th December 2016.

¶16

Perusal of the investigation papers and other material available on record depict that there is no explanation for delayed first information report.

¶17

Cri.Appln.184/2017

¶18

¶19

Apart from above, perusal of the contents in the backdrop of requirement of Sections 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code if analysed, whether the offence in question could be covered within the definition of rape, is also an issue which is required to be appreciated.

¶20

Apart from above, there appears differences between the husband of the complainant and brother of the applicant, as such false implication cannot be ruled out.

¶21

Though investigation in the matter is not complete, however, upon arrest of the applicant, he was subjected to custodial interrogation.

¶22

Having noted from the contents of first information report that prima facie offence under Sections 376 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted, in my opinion, case is made out for grant of bail.

¶23

As such, Criminal Application stands allowed.

¶24

The applicant be released in C.R. No.314/2016, registered at M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, upon furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

¶25

The applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶26

Cri.Appln.184/2017

¶27

¶28

The applicant shall keep himself away from the jurisdiction of M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad, till filing of charge-sheet.

¶29

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶30

vvr

Sominath S/O Sukhdeo Changhate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sominath S/O Sukhdeo Changhate 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

Amol Vinayak Ransing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar Vs Arun Dagdu Madukar and Anr.

Dadarao S/O Raghunath Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Bhimrao Bhamare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gautam S/O Vishwanath Puri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hariprasad Kalmesh Kolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra