Allowed

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2021APEAL/1008/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal against bail rejection, the court enlarged the appellants on bail for criminal offences under IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST Act. Bail was granted subject to a surety bond, non-tampering conditions, and mandatory police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail for sum of Rs. 15,000 each with one or more sureties in the like amount, along with specific undertakings regarding contact with witnesses and police reporting.

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

33.Appeal -1008-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 1008 / 2021

¶4

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. .. Appellants Versus.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Devidas J. Jadhav, for the Appellant.

¶8

Ms. S.V. Sonawane, APP for State.

¶9

Ms. Dhanalakshmi Iyer appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. Tanaji Narayan Pawar, P.S.I., Natepute Police Station.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 22^nd DECEMBER,2021.

¶13

P.C. : -

¶14

Appellants are seeking their enlargement on bail in

¶15

Crime No.371/2021 registered at Natepute Police Sation, Dist. Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 341, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 8 and 12 of the

¶16

Najeeb.. 1/4

¶17

33.Appeal -1008-2021.doc

¶18

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Sections 3(1)(w),(2), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

Prosecution case in brief is that the Accused in furtherance of their common intention, to foster interaction with the victim, forced her to click a photograph with them. Victim reported, the incident to her father on the same day i.e. in the month of August, 2021, yet the report was filed on 23^rd October, 2021, wherein victim would allege that on 22^nd October, 2021, Accused No.1 and 2 again attempted to establish contact with her, despite her clear indication of disinterest.

¶20

The Appellants are Accused No.3 and 4. They were arrested on 10^th November, 2021.

¶21

Perused the FIR. It reveals that AppellantsAccused No.3 and 4 were allegedly accompanying the

¶22

Najeeb.. 2/4

¶23

33.Appeal -1008-2021.doc

¶24

Accused No.1 and 2 on a motor bike; however Complainantvictim, has not attributed ‘any’ overt-act to them. Material accusations have been made against Accused No.1 and 2.

¶25

Appellants are in custody from 10^th November, 2021. Investigating Officer informs that investigation is over. The trial is not likely to commence in the near future. However, Appellants’ presence for the trial can be secured by imposing suitable conditions.

¶26

It may also be stated that the accusations in the FIR, prima facie, do not constitute an offence under the Act of 1989 against the Appellants.

¶27

In consideration of the facts aforestated and for the reasons, Appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 371/2021 registered with Natepute Police Station, Dist. Solapur on executing PR Bond for the sum of Rs. 15000/- each, with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶28

Najeeb.. 3/4

¶29

33.Appeal -1008-2021.doc

¶30

The Appellants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶31

Appellants shall report to the Police Station, twice a month i.e. 2^nd and 4^th Monday between 01:00 pm. to 02:00 pm. commencing from January, 2022, initially for the five months and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer or till the charge is framed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

10. The Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶33

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶34

Digitally signed MOHAMMAD by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB NAJEEBMOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2021.12.22 19:25:29 +0530

¶35

4/4

¶36

Najeeb..

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. 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

Raj Doulatram Rajpal Vs Ram Doulatram Rajpal and Anr.

Khushaboo Narayan Hemnani and Anr. Vs Sai Kripa Stationer, Nashik through the Prop. Raj Jyoti Uttam Singh and Ors.

Manish Arjun Kshatriya and Anr. Vs Arjun Laxman Kshatriya and Anr.

M/S Prem Industries and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abc Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Tukaram Rupnavar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.