Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2018BA/1806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 376, 354(A), and 34 of the IPC. The court considered the allegations against another accused and the nature of the offences while ordering release on bond with sureties and conditions for police attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs. 20,000 with sureties; cash security of Rs. 15,000 for two weeks; mandatory attendance at Juhu Police Station fortnightly.

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rpa 1/4 932-ba-1806-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1806 OF 2018

¶4

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

…... Mr.Ujjwal Gandhi I/b. Mrs.K.R. Shah, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶7

DATED : AUGUST 24, 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Applicant is praying for bail in connection with CR No.279 of 2018, registered with Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354(A) read with 34 of IPC.

¶10

2 Applicant was arrested on 18^th June, 2018, and, since than he is in custody. Prosecution case is that the first informant is theater assistant. She was knowing applicant no.2. Through him, she got acquainted with accused no.1. Accused no.1 was a film producer. He assured the first informant that he would give her role. According to the first informant, as she had hopes that

¶11

Digitally signed by Rajeshri Prakash Aher Date: 2018.08.29 16:54:57 +0530

¶12

Rajeshri Prakash Aher

¶13

rpa 2/4 932-ba-1806-18.doc

¶14

accused would provide her work, she was in contact with accused no.1. Accused No.1 then proposed her for marriage. Thereafter, both of them indulged in physical relationship. Accused no.1 then started avoiding her. She contacted applicant–accused no.2 to know the whereabout of accused no.1. It is alleged that at that point of time, applicant had demanded sexual favour. In pursuant to that, FIR was lodged with the aforesaid police station. Taking the prosecution case as it is, the charge, which could levelled against the applicants under section 354 of IPC, which is a bailable offence. Applicant is in custody since 18^th June, 2018. The co-accused whom the primary role is attributed is also arrested and he is in custody.

¶15

3 Learned APP submitted that the applicant has been impleaded on account of the alleged role attributed to him by the the complainant. The investigation is still in progress. However, it is pertinent to note that the allegations for offence under Section 376 were attributing to accused no.1. Applicant is implicated on the basis of the charge under Section 354A. In the circumstances, bail can be granted to the applicant.

¶16

rpa 3/4 932-ba-1806-18.doc

¶17

4 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶18

:: O R D E R ::

¶19

(i) Bail Application No.1806 of 2018, is allowed;

¶20

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with CR No.279 of 2018, registered with Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one or ore sureties in the like amount;

¶21

(iii) Applicant is permitted to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, for a period of two weeks.

¶22

(iv) Applicant shall attend Juhu Police station, Mumbai, once in a fortnight on Friday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till filing of the charge – sheet;

¶23

rpa 4/4 932-ba-1806-18.doc

¶24

(v) Bail Application No.1806 of 2018, stands

¶25

disposed of;

¶26

(vi) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Nagnath Popat Markad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahulkumar Ashokkumar Parcha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Samrao Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ameer Gulab Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Ramji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra