Held the bail application to be rejected on prima facie material. Directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BA 1121-18.doc
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1121 OF 2018
Ashwin Gajanan Tarpe
.Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr. Swapnil V. Newaskar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the Respondent – State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 11.07.2019
P.C.
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
bail in connection with C. R. No. 180 of 2017 registered with the Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(I), 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as, this is the second Certificate. In
1 of 4
BA 1121-18.doc
support of the said submission, learned counsel for the Applicant relied on two Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil v. State of Haryana , reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 392 and Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2157 . He further submitted that it is a case of consent between the Applicant and the prosecutrix and that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the said case. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has got married and that the Applicant is ready to take care of the child born from the said relations.
2 of 4
BA 1121-18.doc
person. She has further alleged that the Applicant told her that if she discloses the incident to any person, she would get defamed. She has stated that thereafter, the Applicant without her consent again had physical relations with her. She has further stated that in January, 2017, she shifted to another place and that the Applicant came there and again threatened her and had physical relations with her as a result of which she became pregnant, pursuant to which, the aforesaid complaint was lodged. According to the prosecution, the Applicant had physical relations with the Complainant without her consent from 2013 to 2017. The statement of the Complainant recorded under Section 161 of the prosecutrix is consistent with her 164 statement. In her 164 statement, she has also stated that the Applicant had photographs of her on his mobile when she was bathing and of the physical relations with him. When the complaint was lodged, the prosecutrix was 17 years. The alleged incident is stated to have started from 2013, when the prosecutrix was about 13 years of age. As far as the Certificate regarding the date of birth which is on page No. 32 of the Application is concerned, it appears that it was issued by the first School in accordance with the School Register.
3 of 4
BA 1121-18.doc
this is not a fit case to enlarge the Applicant on bail. Hence, the Application stands rejected. The Applicant is in custody since 2017, hence, the trial of the Applicant is expedited. Learned Trial Judge to conclude the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application should be allowed considering prima facie material against the applicant.
Whether the delay in trial warrants bail release.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashwin Gajanan Tarpe
The State of Maharashtra
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
