Allowed

Purushottam S/O. Dulichand Kavare (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Duggipar

Bombay HC4 Mar 2019APPA/25/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application during criminal appeal, the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the application. The Court found the applicant had made out a case for bail because the victim's examination-in-chief suggested she was a consenting party, diminishing the rigor of the prosecution's evidence. The substantive sentence was suspended during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended during appeal; applicant released on bail subject to conditions.

Purushottam S/O. Dulichand Kavare (in Jail) Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

appa25.19 7

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.25/2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2019 Purshottam s/o Dulichand Kavare

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Mah., thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Duggipar, Tahsil Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia

¶7

....................................................................................................................................................................................... O ffice N otes, O ffice M em oranda of C oram , appearances, C ourt orders or direction s C ourt's or Judge's O rder and R egistrar's orders

¶8

Shri J.Y.Lade, Counsel for the applicant. Shri A.M.Joshi, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

¶9

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : MARCH 4, 201 9 .

¶10

This is an application for suspension of substantive jail sentence and for grant of bail.

¶11

By judgment and order of conviction dated 7.12.2018, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Special (Atro) Case No.6/2016 convicted the applicant for offences under Section 376(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

¶12

The applicant is also convicted for offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of

.....2/-

appa25.19 7

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

¶17

The applicant is also convicted for offence under Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

¶18

On 24.1.2019, this Court admitted the present appeal and consideration of the present application was deferred, till receipt of the record and proceedings. The said record and proceedings are received.

¶19

First Information Report (Exhibit 21) is dated 22.11.2015. The said is lodged by the victim herself.

¶20

Incident in question, according to the First Information Report, occurred in the month of March 2015. The report was lodged only after the victim got pregnant.

¶21

Evidence of the victim (PW1) shows that on the date of the incident, in the month of March 2015, when she was in field to answer the nature's call, she was caught hold by the applicant and against her wish sexual intercourse was established.

¶22

It has come in her examination-in-chief that due to fear and apprehension, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. However, her evidence in examination-in-chief itself shows that she was consenting party. She stated in examination-in-chief itself that on the next day, at about 4:30-5:00 a.m., she went on the same place as per the say of

.....3/-

appa25.19 7

applicant and there the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her.

¶27

The aforesaid shows that the victim, who was major girl, was consenting party for the sexual intercourse.

¶28

It is not in dispute that during the course of the Trial, the applicant was on bail and at no point of time he misused the liberty granted to him in his favour.

¶29

Further, the applicant is in jail from the date of conviction.

¶30

Looking to the evidence of the victim herself, I find that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail in his favour. Hence, I pass following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The criminal application is allowed.

¶33

(ii) The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant by judgment and order of conviction dated 7.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Special (Atro) Case No.6/2016 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal.

¶34

(iii) Applicant-Purshottam s/o Dulichand Kavare, shall be released on bail on he executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

¶35

(iv) The Bail Bond will be executed before the Court below.

¶36

(v) Learned Judge of the Court below before whom the Bail

.....4/-

appa25.19 7

Bond will be executed shall ensure that the applicant has deposited the entire fine amount and till the Bail Bond is executed learned Judge of the Court shall not issue warrant of release.

¶41

(vi) During the pendency of the present appeal, the applicant shall mark his presence with Police Station Duggipar, Tahsil Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia once in 6 months and shall maintain diary showing his presence at the police station.

¶42

(vii) At the time of final hearing of the present appeal, the applicant shall remain personally present before this Court.

¶43

(viii) With this, the criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

JU D G E

¶45

!! BR W !!

¶46

...../-

Purushottam S/O. Dulichand Kavare (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Duggipar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam S/O. Dulichand Kavare (in Jail) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Duggipar

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

Smt. Shashiprabha W/O. Anilkumar Singh Vs Shri. Sheshnath Singh Jageshwar Singh Thakur and Another

Rajkumar Vikram Meshram Vs Gopal S/O. Fulichand Meshram

Dinesh Mahadeorao Kolhe Vs Prakash Rambhauji Warghane

Rajiv Bhupendranath Sidhra Vs Ganpatrao Mahadeorao Kapse

Girish S/O Shankarrao Deopujari Vs Shirish Purushottam Tidke and Anor.

Smt. Annapurna Namdeorao Rokade Vs Smt. Aparna W/O. Manish Khairkar and Othr.