Partly allowed

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Aug 2021ABA/2511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court confirmed a prior interim order and granted bail subject to conditions, noting that the investigation in a rape-related case was nearing completion and the applicant had cooperated.

What did the court decide?

Interim order confirmed; upon arrest, applicant to be released on bail with Rs. 25,000 bond and sureties, subject to conditions.

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4.ABA 2511.19.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.08.09 17:30:06 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2511 OF 2019

¶6

Dr.Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar …. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶7

Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b Mr.Shailesh I. Kantharia, for the Applicant. Smt.P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr.Waghmode, API Santacruze Police Station.

¶8

CORAM : M. S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : 07th AUGUST, 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. My attention is invited to the order dated 21/11/2019 passed by this Court. This is an application for prearrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 404 of 2019, registered with Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai for the ofence alleged against the Applicant under sections 376, 328, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. It would be material to reproduce paragraph 5 to 7 of the order passed by this Court while granting interim protection which read thus:

¶12

1/4

¶13

4.ABA 2511.19.doc

¶14

"5.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the relationship was apparently consensual. He relied upon the contents of the FIR and the messages exchanged between the parties. It is pointed out that the messages were exchanged showing afnity by the complainant even after the date of the alleged incident as refected in the FIR.

¶15

6 . FIR refers to the incident of 12th April, 2018 and 13th May, 2018. FIR was lodged on 14th October, 2019.

¶16

Learned APP submits that the mobile phone of the Applicant is required to be recovered. It is also submitted that the Applicant is threatening the complainant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, however, deny the contentions of issuing any threats. It is also submitted by learned APP that the Applicant is required for the purpose of medical examination. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that he is willing the cooperate with the investigation and would produce the mobile phone and also make himself available for medical examination. In the circumstances, interim protection can be granted to the Applicant on certain terms and conditions."

¶17

Learned APP on instructions submits that pursuant to the statement recorded in paragraph 7 of the said order, the Applicant is co-operating with the investigation and has produced the mobile phone and even made himself available for medical examination. Even charge-sheet is ready and is expected to be fled within a period of 3 weeks, may be earlier. Even learned APP fairly submits on instructions that in this view of the matter,

¶18

2/4

¶19

4.ABA 2511.19.doc

¶20

the custody of the Applicant may not really be necessary as investigation is complete and even the Applicant has co-operated with the investigation. It is pointed out that the Applicant had reported to the Investigating Ofcer on the date fxed by this Court and even thereafter as and when called by Investigating Ofcer for the purpose of investigation. The Applicant is on prearrest bail since 21/11/2019. In this view of the matter, following order is passed.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(i) The interim order passed by this Court on 21/11/2019 is confrmed.

¶23

(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R.No.404 of 2019, registered with Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai, the Applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

(iii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Ofcer as and when called for.

¶25

(iv) The Applicant shall not indulge in any act of

¶26

3/4

¶27

4.ABA 2511.19.doc

¶28

threatening complainant or witnesses.

¶29

Application is disposed of.

¶30

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶31

4/4

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar 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

Vasant Haridas Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vipul Mahajan and Anr. Vs the Hon. Minister Co-Operatie Societies and Ors.

Vilas Chandrakant Dukare Vs the Additional Commissioner , Konkan Division and Ors.

Hema Dinesh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Sitaram Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Bharat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra