Allowed

Ajit Ramu Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Dec 2018ABA/1511/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by accused apprehending arrest for offences under IPC 366/376 read with 34. Court found prima facie evidence of consensual conduct. Granted bail subject to police enquiry on alleged threats, attendance, and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on executing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/ with one or two sureties in like amount with conditions for attendance and non-tampering of witnesses.

Ajit Ramu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Rane 1/5 ABA15112018 (SR.8) 19.12.2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1511 OF 2018

¶5

Ajit Ramu Rathod V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

....Respondent

¶9

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 963 OF 2018 IN

¶10

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1511 OF 2018

¶11

Kumari Gayatri Shivaji Chavan ...Applicant Intervenor

¶12

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶13

Ajit Ramu Rathod ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

¶14

¶15

Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the applicant in ABA 15112018.

¶16

Mr. Avinash N. Naikwadi, Advocate for the Intervenor in APPP963 of 2018.

¶17

Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶18

Rane

¶19

2/5 ABA15112018 (SR.8) 19.12.2018

¶20

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

¶21

th Wednesday, 19 December, 2018.

¶22

P.C. :

¶23

It is an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 308 of 2018 registered at Vijapurnaka Police Station, Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶25

Heard the original complainant in Intervention Application No. 963 of 2018. Perused the complaint and the documents placed on record with the application. The

¶26

complainant is major. It appears from the complaint that, she voluntarily submitted to the sexual advances with the

¶27

Rane 3/5 ABA15112018 (SR.8) 19.12.2018

¶28

applicantaccused. That while granting the adinterim

¶29

relief, it has been observed that, “primafacie it appears there were consensual sex between the applicant and the

¶30

complainant and the complainant happens to be more than 19 years old.” After going through the complaint in

¶31

entirety I have no reason to defer to hold any other opinion than as expressed in para3 of the order dated 30^th July, 2018 passed in this application.

¶32

The learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor vehemently opposed the application and submitted that when the application for anticipatory bail was pending before the learned Sessions Court, the applicant had threatened the family members of the complainant to withdraw the complaint. He submitted a copy of the

¶33

Affidavit of the complainant dated 9^th July, 2018. He further submitted that this Affidavit was not brought to the notice of the Court when the applicant was granted

¶34

Rane 4/5 ABA15112018 (SR.8) 19.12.2018

¶35

adinterim relief on 30^th July, 2018 because at the

¶36

relevant time, he had not filed the Intervention Application.

¶37

I have perused the Affidavit of the complainant dated 9^th July, 2018. The respondent, concerned Police

¶38

Station is directed to look into the contents of the Affidavit and conduct an appropriate enquiry and arrive at a logical conclusion. If it is found in the enquiry that accused had threatened the family members of the complainant to withdraw the complaint, the concerned

¶39

Investigating Officer may bring this fact to the notice of the Court for adopting appropriate remedies.

¶40

After going through the complaint, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to grant bail.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following order :

¶42

(I) In the event of the arrest of the applicant in

¶43

Crime No. 308 of 2018 registered with Vijapurnaka

¶44

Police Station, Solapur, the applicant is directed to

¶45

Rane

¶46

5/5 ABA15112018 (SR.8) 19.12.2018

¶47

be released on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/

¶48

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶49

(ii) The applicant is directed to attend Vijapurnaka

¶50

Police Station on Monday from the week commencing

¶51

from 24^th December, 2018 between 11 to 2 p.m. for a period of two months and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer until the chargesheet is filed.

¶52

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution witness.

¶53

(iv) With the above directions, the application is disposed off.

¶54

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)

Ajit Ramu Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Ramu Rathod 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

Ashok Shripati Chavan Vs Shrikant Bapu Aitawade and Ors.

Ashok Shripati Chavan Vs Shrikant Bapu Aitawade and Ors.

M/S. Biharilal Ramnarayan Mantri Vs Anil Narottamdas Shah and Anr.

Ajit Lahanu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohit Baliram Chandole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikant @ Appa Chintamani Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra