The applicant sought bail for alleged abetment and confinement of minors in sexual offences involving the main accused. Despite evidence of her active support to the accused, bail was refused based on the serious nature of the charges and the weight of the prosecution case.
Bail application dismissed. The applicant is to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 : 25-ba-457-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2021
Sindhu Baban Guldagad.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Smt. Vrushali Maindad a/w. Shaheen Kapadia for Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.
CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:01st MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
1.The Applicant is seeking her release on bail in
connection with C.R.No. 886 of 2019 registered with Yavat police
station, Pune, under sections 363, 376, 366(A), 344 and 506 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), under sections 4, 6
and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, under sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(a) of the Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
under section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
2.Heard Smt. Vrushali Maindad, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri. Yadav, learned APP for the State.
Gokhale
1 of 4
: 2 : 25-ba-457-21.odt
3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is
lodged by one Ashok Bhil on 17/10/2019. One of the victims was
his daughter aged 17 years and other other was his daughter in
law’s sister who was 15 years and 5 months of age on the date of
lodging of F.I.R. Both of them were residing with the first
informant. Both of them went missing from the night between
16/10/2019 and 17/10/2019. According to the first informant,
somebody had either abducted them or induced them to go away
from his lawful custody. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged initially
under section 363 of IPC. Subsequently, the investigation was
carried out and other sections as mentioned earlier were added.
4.The applicant was arrested on 21/12/2019 and since
then she is in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-
sheet is filed.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
elder of the victims is still residing with the main accused and,
therefore, some leniency may be shown to the present applicant.
She submitted that, both victims had left their house out of their
own free will and, therefore, others cannot be held responsible for
2 of 4
: 3 : 25-ba-457-21.odt
that. In any case, the applicant is paternal aunt of the main
accused and, therefore, she should not be penalised for the offence
committed by him.
6.Learned APP opposed this application and relied on the
statements of two victims.
7.I have considered these submissions. The victims have
given their statements on two occasions. On the first occasion,
their statements were recorded under section 161 of Cr.p.c. on
20/12/2019 and on the second occasion, their statements were
recorded under section 164 of Cr.p.c. on 30/12/2019. Both victims
in their statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.p.c. have
stated that, elder of the victims was having relations with the main
accused Anil. At his instance, both of them went with him towards
Vagalwadi. They travelled on one motorcycle. Both the victims
were taken to the applicant’s house. Their statements go on
mentioning that the applicant then kept watch on the victims and
kept them in confinement. The main accused Anil used to establish
physical relations with both the victims. The younger of the victims
was overpowered and she was also raped by the main accused
3 of 4
: 4 : 25-ba-457-21.odt
Anil. To that extent, the statements of both these victims are
consistent. The applicant had actively supported the main accused
in all this. On one occasion, somehow the younger victim rescued
herself. She escaped and then by seeking help, approached her
parents and then police.
8.In their statements under section 164 of Cr.p.c. the
elder of the victims has not supported the prosecution case. She
has resiled from her own statement. She has stated that, out of
their own free will they stayed in the house of the present
applicant. However, younger of the victims was 15 years of age
and has stuck to her story and she has narrated how she was raped
by the main accused Anil and his cousin and as to how the
applicant actively helped the main accused in this offence. In view
of this statement, there is sufficient material against the present
applicant. The offence is quite serious. No leniency can be shown
to the present applicant. There is no merit in the application.
9.The application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant, alleged to have confined victims and supported the main accused in sexual offences.
Whether the inconsistency in the elder victim's statement warrants granting leniency or bail to the applicant.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering she is a paternal aunt of the main accused and the serious nature of the offences.
6 provisions across 5 enactments
Sindhu Baban Guldagad
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court