Allowed

Nitin Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Oct 2021BA/1429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court of Bombay reviewed allegations of sexual assault under IPC and POCSO. The court noted the consensual relationship and lack of criminal antecedents despite false age claims during a forced marriage ceremony, ultimately granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Crime No.366 of 2020 with security of Rs.20,000/- and two sureties in like amount, subject to non-tampering with evidence.

Nitin Laxman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1429 OF 2021

¶5

NITIN LAXMAN CHAVAN

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)
)
2) XYZ)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.Sanjeev Kadam i/b. Mr.Prashant Raul, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶10

Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

Mr.Shradha Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

 RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 28th OCTOBER 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1The present application has been moved by the

¶16

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶17

Crime No.366 of 2020 registered with Police Station Vaduj, for

¶18

AVK 1/6

¶19

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶20

offences punishable under Section 376, 366, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offenes Act (POCSO Act).

¶21

2The applicant is the cousin of prosecutrix. According
to prosecution, the applicant had approached the prosecutrix and
expressed his desire to marry her. The prosecution alleges that
on 26th September 2020, the applicant visited the house of the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was alone in the house. The
prosecution further alleges that after telling the prosecutrix that
since both of them would marry, the applicant assaulted the
prosecutrix sexually. The same act was repeated on 8th October
2020 and 20th November 2020. On 20th November 2020, the
applicant took the prosecutrix to Vitthal Rukmini Mandir and
with the help of bhatji performed marriage. After returning to the
house, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents who
later on lodged the report.

¶22

3Mr.Sanjeev Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant,

¶23

AVK 2/6

¶24

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶25

submits that the relationship between the applicant and
prosecutrix is not disputed. Although on the date of lodging of
complaint, it is shown that the prosecutrix was 17 years 8 months
old, but having regard to the circumstances, the prosecutrix had
attained the age of understanding and was fully knowing what
she was indulging in. This being a case of consensual
relationship and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents,
the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

¶26

4Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed
the submissions by contending that while solemnizing the
marriage on 20th November 2020, the applicant used false
Aadhar Card in order to show that the prosecutrix had completed
the age of 18 years. Since, at the relevant time, the prosecutrix
was minor and was sexually exploited by the applicant, the
present application does not deserve consideration.

¶27

5Mr.Shradha Sawant, learned counsel for respondent
no.2/ prosecutrix-victim, has advanced similar submissions as

¶28

AVK 3/6

¶29

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶30

advanced by the learned APP. The learned counsel during the
course of submissions also invited my attention to the statement
of brother and sister of the prosecutrix.

¶31

6From the First Information Report (FIR) of the
prosecutrix/victim it is seen that on the date of lodging of the
report, she was 17 years 8 months old and her date of birth as
given in the FIR is 28th February 2003. Assuming that the
prosecutrix was minor when the alleged incident of sexual
assault took place, but if the chronology of events as given in the
FIR is seen carefully then definitely it would be seen, prima facie,
that both of them i.e. prosecutrix and the applicant were in
consensual sexual relationship. Not only for the first time on 26th
September 2020 both of them indulged in sexual activity but
later on also, from time to time, the prosecutrix submitted herself
to the sexual desire of the applicant. Although in the FIR it is
alleged that it was against her will, but her conduct speaks
loudly. This conduct goes to show that she was very well aware
of the act, in which she was indulging in, with the applicant.

¶32

AVK 4/6

¶33

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶34

7I have also gone through the statements of brother

¶35

and sister of the prosecutrix who have parroted unisonly qua the
contents of the FIR. Moreover, admittedly, the investigation is
over and the charge-sheet has been filed. No criminal
antecedents are brought on record. Having regard to the
relationship between the prosecutrix and the applicant and
considering over all circumstances of the case, in my considered
opinion, the applicant deserves to be admitted on bail. Hence,
the following order :

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Applicant – Nitin Laxman Chavan shall be released on bail in Crime No.366 of 2020 registered with Police Station Vaduj, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶38

(ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶39

AVK 5/6

¶40

BA-1429-2021.doc

¶41

(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every month, till the Charge is framed.

¶42

(iv)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

¶43

(v)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶44

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by ARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.10.28 12:02:00 +0530

¶46

AVK 6/6

Nitin Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Laxman Chavan 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

Rambhau Santu Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhimrao Padalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Nana Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Parashuram Sansare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra