Allowed

Rekha Avtar Rajput v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2021ABA/352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court allowed anticipatory bail applications for two female applicants facing rape and extortion charges. The judgment noted unexplained FIR delays, vagueness, and failure to recover material evidence, recommending non-custodial bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of personal bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with sureties; applicants required to attend IO and refrain from influencing witnesses.

Rekha Avtar Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Dusane

¶2

1/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2019

¶5

....
Mrs. Rekha Avtar RajputApplicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra....
Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 327 OF 2019

¶8

....
Smt. Kalpana Thackersay SavlaApplicant
Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.....
Respondents

¶10

Ms. Mallika Ingale h/for Rekha Rajput i/by Bhanudas Jagtap for Applicant
in ABA No. 352 of 2019.

¶11

Mr. Amol Patankar for Applicant in ABA No. 327 of 2019.
Mr. Mohan Pillai for Intervenor.

¶12

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for State.

¶13

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 23rd JULY, 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Dusane

¶16

2/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶17

1.In both these applications, the applicants/females are
seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.46 of 2017, registered with
Kandivali Police Station, punishable under Sections 328, 376, 384 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

2.The prosecution case in brief is, the complainant Jayashree
alleged that the applicant Rekha alongwith other applicant Kalpana
introduced her to other three male co-accused. The applicants
alongwith these three male accused, took the complainant to the house
of Kalpana Savla, where the male accused sexually assaulted her and
video clip of the same was drawn. It is also claimed in the F.I.R. that the
said video clip is used for blackmailing the complainant and accordingly
jewellery worth Rs.11,50,000/- and cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was
extracted.

¶19

3.As far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, three
male accused were already arrested and subjected to custodial
interrogation. As far as these three male accused are concerned,
nothing incriminating as has been claimed in the F.I.R. is recovered.

¶20

Dusane

¶21

3/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶22

4.In the aforesaid backdrop, both the Counsel would urge

¶23

that there is unexplained delay of about more than four years in lodging
the F.I.R.. From the language employed in the F.I.R., it is also claimed
that the contents thereof are quite vague. As such in the aforesaid
backdrop particularly about the non-recovery of incriminating material
from male co-accused, nature of allegations, against the applicants,
falsity of the crime should be inferred. Learned counsel for the
applicants would further urge that the applicants are under interim
protection of this Court for last more than two years and have reported
the Investigating Officer. As such, according to him, the custodial
interrogation of the applicants is not warranted.

¶24

5.Learned APP assisted by Mr. Pillai, learned counsel
appearing for the Complainant would urge that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants is very much required as the cash
amount and jewellery is yet to be recovered. Apart from above, it is
claimed that the mode and manner of the commission of offence is also
required to be looked into.

¶25

Dusane

¶26

4/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶27

6. Considered rival submissions.

¶28

7.As far as delay in lodging F.I.R. is concerned, no explanation
whatsoever is tendered by the complainant. Apart from above, it is
noticed that the complainant herself has operated locker on 16th July,
2013, 7th December, 2013, 31st December, 2013, 6th January, 2014 and
11th January, 2014, whereas her husband appears to have operated
locker with Dena Bank on 2nd December, 2013 and 5th February, 2015
onwards.

¶29

8.As such, it can be inferred that the complainant has already
operated locker on 17th and 31st December, 2013, whereas in the F.I.R.,
she is mentioned only about operation of locker once that too in

¶30

December,

¶31

9.No explanation it is coming forward as to whether the

¶32

operation of locker onwards in the month of December and thereafter
again in January i.e. 6th and 11th.

¶33

Dusane

¶34

5/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶35

10.Apart from above, though the complainant claimed to have

¶36

repeatedly visited with the applicant to vegetable vendor, the statement
of vegetable vendor is not recorded to confirm the same. The video of
the complainant in compromise position was recorded as claimed by the
prosecution, which was used for the purpose of blackmailing the
complainant, the custodial interrogation of the three male accused, who
claimed to have actively played role in the commission of offence, has
no resulted in discovery of incriminating material viz. Cash, jewellery,
mobile phones etc.

¶37

11.Though the complainant has specifically referred above
receipt of the amount from her brother-in-law Dinesh who is residing in
U.S.A. through one Mr. Babulal, said Babulal has not supported the case
of the complainant. Even the visit of the complainant to the hotel
alongwith co-accused Pankaj and Nitin is also not supported by any
evidence. Even the CCTV footage from the hotel are also not recovered
so as to establish the presence of the accused persons.

¶38

Dusane

¶39

6/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶40

12.In the aforesaid backdrop, the fact remains that there is

¶41

unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the very statement of the
complainant in the F.I.R. is contrary to the evidence collected during the
investigation. Hence false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled
out.

¶42

13.There are no criminal antecedents against the applicants as
is reported.

¶43

14.In that view of the matter, the ad-interim protection

¶44

ordered by this Court is confirmed. Hence, the following order :

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

i)The applications are allowed.

¶47

ii)In the event of arrest in Crime No. 46 of 2017 for offences

¶48

punishable under Sections 328, 376, 384 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, registered with Kandivali Police Station, the applicants be
released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with
one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶49

Dusane

¶50

7/731 ABA 352.2019.doc

¶51

iii)The applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer on 3rd,
5th and 9th August, 2021 between 10.00 am. to 12.00 pm. and
thereafter as and when directed;

¶52

iv)The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witnesses
or tamper with the evidence.

¶53

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Rekha Avtar Rajput v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Avtar Rajput 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrita Rakesh Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ketan Madhukar Misal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nutan Ashish Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Dilip Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rikabchand Aslaji Oswal Vs Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda Decd. through Lhr and Anr.

Pranali Swapnil Kamble Vs Swapnil Chandrakant Kamble