Allowed

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2017BA/684/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail in a criminal complaint regarding rape. The applicant is released on furnishing sureties with conditions prohibiting tampering with witnesses and entry into a specific village.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- with sureties; prohibition on tampering with witnesses, committing similar offence, and entering village Khardi.

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(37)-BA-684-17.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.684 OF 2017

¶4

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶5

Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Mrs. Pooja Sejpal for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶7

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 21^st AUGUST 2017

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 The Application is filed for bail in C. R. No.76 of 2016 registered with the Mahad Police Station punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

2 Both the sides are heard. Report of investigations are made available for perusal of this Court.

¶11

3 The allegations against the present Applicant are that when the Complainant was alone at home and all other family members had gone out of the house for their work, Applicant raped her and then in June 2016, Applicant again came to her house and raped her. It is further alleged that the Applicant committed sexual intercourse with her for 5 – 6 times within a gap of 15 days. Thereafter she missed her Menstrual BGP. 1 of 2

¶12

(37)-BA-684-17.doc .

¶13

Cycle 15 days prior to lodging of FIR, she went to doctor who told her that she was pregnant. She alongwith her aunt went to the police station and then FIR was registered.

¶14

4 Medical report is consistent to the aforesaid contentions. The Applicant is aged about 20 years. There is a school record which supports that the victim has completed 18 years of age. The Applicant is behind the bars since 04.11.2016. This Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the Applicant behind the bars till the disposal of proceedings. In the result, application is allowed. The Applicant is to be released on bail on his furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount. The Applicant is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He is not to commit similar offence. The Applicant is not to enter village Khardi, Taluka Mahad, District Raigad till the proceeding against him is pending.

¶15

[T. V. NALAWADE, J]

¶16

2 of 2

¶17

BGP.

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Bashir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Annasaheb Appasaheb Vastrad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay @ Dadya Sahebrao @ Nana Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinayak Shivram Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas @ Vilas Ramdas Aahire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bharat Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra