Allowed

Rahil Abdul Salam Tambe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Mar 2021BA/381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a criminal matter involving sections 376, 506 IPC and IT Act. The court directed release on bail with a fine and periodic reporting conditions due to a long custody period and unsubstantiated non-traceability of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 and one surety; attendance of trial; reporting to police once in three months.

Rahil Abdul Salam Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

1 of 4

Ganesh Lokhande

57-ba-381-21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 381 OF 2021

¶6

Rahil Abdul Salam Tambe...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra a/w. Mr. Ayaz Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.
PSI- Rajan Dhuri Sakinaka Police Station.

¶10

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 1st MARCH, 2021.

¶11

PC :

¶12

1.This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.

¶13

No. 1387 of 2020, registered with RCF Police Station, which was
transferred to Sakinaka Police Station registered vide C.R. No. 1328
of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 506 of

¶14

Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. AherDate: Aher 2021.03.05 14:19:00 +0530

¶15

IPC and Section 67(a) of Information Technology Act.

¶16

2.The applicant was arrested on 9th December, 2020. The
case of the complainant as per the First Information Report (“FIR”)
dated 30th November, 2020 is that she is aged about 22 years. She
came across one person was talking her. She gave her name Raheel
Tambe. There was friendship between them. He took her mobile
phone. Both of them have exchanged their cellphone number. They

2 of 4

Ganesh Lokhande

57-ba-381-21.doc

started chatting on whatsapp. The accused promised that, he would
marry her. In February, 2019 the accused was waiting outside her
office. He told her that since he is going to marry her, they can have
physical relationship. The complainant refused. Thereafter, he took
her to friend’s house and committed sexual intercourse with her. On
several occasion, there was physical relationship between them. In
2019, the accused called her at Sakinaka Metro Police Station and
took her to his friend’s house. He broke her cellphone by banging it
on floor.

¶21

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire
case is false. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.
Assuming that allegations are true, it appears that the relationship
was of consensual nature. The victim is not traceable.

¶22

4.Learned APP submitted that the investigation is
completed and charge-sheet is filed. The statement of the victim
could not be recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC. Victim is not
cooperating. She is not traceable. It is further stated that on
instruction from the officer present in the Court, that victim has not
provided her address.

¶23

5. Assuming that the allegations are true, the case of the complainant is that she was acquainted with the accused, there was

3 of 4

Ganesh Lokhande

57-ba-381-21.doc

friendship. They had established physical relationship. The applicant
is in custody for substantial period of time. Considering factual
matrix of the case, further detention of the applicant, is not called
for.

¶28

6.Hence, I pass the following order.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

i)Bail Application No. 381 of 2021, is allowed;

¶31

ii)The applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No. 1387 of 2020, registered

¶32

with RCF Police Station, which was transferred to
Sakinaka Police Station vide C.R. No. 1328 of
2020 on executing P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶33

iii)The applicant shall attend Trial Court regularly on
the dates of hearing of the case unless exempted
by the Court.

¶34

iv)The applicant shall report concerned police
station once in three months on every first
Saturday of the month between 11.00 am. to 1.00
pm. till further order.

4 of 4

Ganesh Lokhande

57-ba-381-21.doc

v)The applicant shall provide his permanent address
to the investigating officer as soon as he is
released on bail;

¶39

vi)Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Rahil Abdul Salam Tambe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahil Abdul Salam Tambe 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

Shaleen Multani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaivan Jitendra Lalan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Pandurang Ainapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Bharat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Kisan Nayak and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajan Ratna Bhurkud Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.