Dismissed

Gayatri Babulal Das v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2021APPLN/333/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application for bail cancellation, the High Court rejected the applicant's plea. The court held that the existing relationship between parties and conduct were consensual in nature. Considering the lapse of time and facts on record, no case for interfering with the earlier bail order was made out.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 333 of 2016 is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.

Gayatri Babulal Das Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

rpa 1 / 4 6 appln 333 2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2016

¶4

Gayatri Babulal Das .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

…... Ms.Janaki Ravi i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1– State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATED : AUGUST 3, 2021.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2, vide order dated 10^th February, 2016.

¶11

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2021.08.04 11:21:41 +0530

¶12

2 Respondent no.2 was arrested in connection with C.R.No.35 of 2016, registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, for the ofences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 354(A) and 420 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).

¶13

3 The case of the complainant is that she was married

¶14

rpa 2 / 4 6 appln 333 2016.doc

¶15

in 2016, and, on account of diferences with her husband, the marriage was dissolved. She got acquainted with the applicant on Facebook, a social networking site. They developed friendship. The accused promised marriage. On 14^th September, 2015, the accused met the complainant. There was physical relationship between them from 15^th September, 2015 to 16^th September, 2015. From 16^th October, 2015 to 20^th October, 2015, again there was physical relationship. She had conceived. The accused avoided the complainant. Hence, FIR was lodged on 16^th January, 2016. Respondent no.2 preferred an application for bail before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10^th February, 2016.

¶16

4 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there has been breach of conditions of bail. Respondent no.2 had intimidated the complainant. Reference is made to the NC complaint fled by the applicant, after respondent no.2 was released on bail. It is submitted that the complaint was forwarded to Senior Inspector of Police against the respondent–accused. Another FIR was registered against respondent no.2, vide C.R.No.142 of 2016, on 14^th March, 2016, for the ofences punishable under Sections 354, 509 and 323 read with 34 of IPC.

¶17

rpa 3 / 4 6 appln 333 2016.doc

¶18

Respondent no.2 was granted bail in the said case vide order dated 2^nd May, 2016. Respondent no.2 has not attended the police station, as directed in order dated 2^nd May, 2916. Hence, bail granted to him may be cancelled.

¶19

5 Learned APP submitted that on completion of investigation, charge–sheet was fled against respondent no.2. The case is pending before the concerned Court. The matter is due for framing of charge on 10^th August, 2021.

¶20

6 From the tenor of the FIR dated 16^th January, 2016, it is apparent that the accused and the complainant were in relationship, which was consensual nature. Bail was granted by order dated 10^th February, 2016. Period of about 5 years has lapsed. The charge–sheet is fled against the accused thereafter. For breach of conditions, if any, the applicant did not prefer an application for cancellation of bail before the same Court. In any event those complaints are of 2016. The learned judge has taken into consideration the factual aspects while granting bail. In the impugned order it was observed that the accused was younger in age than the victim. The victim was 39 years old. There was physical relationship between them. In the FIR there is no

¶21

rpa 4 / 4 6 appln 333 2016.doc

¶22

utterance that under the misconception of facts or under any promise, the accused has committed rape. The investigation is over. Both had physical relations and were mature enough to know the consequence of that. In the subsequent FIR lodged by the applicant, respondent no.2 was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 2^nd May, 2016. NC complaints lodged in 2016 and 2018. Investigation was over. The case is pending before the concerned Court for framing charge. Considering these aspects, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order granting bail.

¶23

:: O R D E R ::

¶24

(i) Criminal Application No.333 of 2016, is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Gayatri Babulal Das v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri Babulal Das 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renuka Namdeo Karkale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Julias Baliram Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nivrutti Dharma Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Ramu Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra

Subhashchandra Kanojia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kulwant Kishori Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra