The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant convicted of sexual assault on a minor. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of bail under Section 439 CrPC, finding no error on merits, and directed expedition of the trial.
The criminal appeal was dismissed. The appellant was not released on bail.
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.
ssk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2022
Mahesh Shrihari Latpate..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr...Respondents
Mr. Nitesh Mohite a/w. Mr. Ashish Vernekar i/by Mr. Sachin T. Zalte
for Appellant.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State.
Ms. Devyani Kulkani, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:A. S. GADKARI &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE:23rd September, 2022.
P.C.:
.By the present Appeal, Appellant (original accused No.1) has
impugned the Order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the learned Special
Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune below Exhibit-8 in Special
Case No. 755 of 2020, thereby rejecting the Application for bail under
Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Heard Mr.Mohite, learned Advocate for the Appellant,
Mr.Patil, learned APP for State and Ms. Kulkarni, learned Advocate
appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to represent Respondent No.2.
Perused chargesheet.
3.As the victim in the present case is a minor, in consonance
with provisions of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
1/4
33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO
Act”), the detailed narration of the facts disclosing her identity and/or
identity of her near relatives is hereby avoided.
4. Appellant is accused No.1 in Criminal Case No. 326 of 2020
dated 12.10.2020 registered with Ranjangaon MIDC Police Station,
Pune (Rural). After investigation, the said case is culminated into
Special Case No. 755 of 2020.
5. It is the prosecution’s case that, the Appellant was residing in
Room No. 401 in the same building where the victim (minor) who was
aged about 14 years and 6 months at the relevant time, was residing
in room No. 306 on the 3rd floor. That, the Appellant pestered victim
saying that, he is in love with her; initially did blackmailing by saying
that, he may commit suicide, if she refuses to marry with him and
subsequently in connivance with other two accused persons removed
the victim from the lawful custody of her parents on 12.10.2020. That,
the Appellant thereafter took victim to Pune and subsequently to
Kolhapur and Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej, District Beed and committed
forcible sexual intercourse with her.
6. Appellant came to be arrested on 19.10.2020 at
Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej, District Beed. Perusal of statement of
victim clearly indicates that, Appellant induced her to leave her
parents and with the help and in connivance with other two accused
2/4
persons took her to Pune, Kolhapur and Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej,
District Beed and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. It
appears that, Appellant also threatened the prosecutrix that, if she
refuses to permit him to have sexual relations with her, he may
defameher in the society.
7. Record further indicates that, the statement of prosecutrix
under Section 164 of Cr.PC has been recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Taluka Shirur, District Pune on 20.09.2020.
Perusal of the said statement clearly indicates that, the victim has not
deviated from her original statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.PC.
8. Ms. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appointed to represent
Respondent No.2 pointed out that, as per the medical documents, the
U.P. Test of victim has shown positive results. That, the Medical
Officer attached to Rural Hospital at Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District
Pune has opined that, on examination of prosecutrix sexual assault
might have occurred.
9. After taking into consideration the material available on
record, this Court is of the considered view that, Appellant does not
deserve to be released on bail.
We find that, there is no error committed by the learned trial
Court while passing the impugned Orders dated 03.8.2021 on merits.
10.As the Appellant in jail since 19.10.2020, and taking into
3/4
consideration the age of the Appellant on the date of commission of
offence, the learned Special Judge, Pune seized of Special Case No.
755 of 2020 is requested to expedite the hearing of the said case.
11. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
[A. S. GADKARI, J.]
SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2022.10.01 KILAJE 16:04:18 +0530
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should decline to interfere with the rejection of bail application under Section 439 CrPC given the nature of the offence against a minor.
Whether there was any error committed by the learned trial court while rejecting the bail application on merits.
Whether the case hearing should be expedited considering the appellant's detention and age at the time of offence.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahesh Shrihari Latpate
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 2
A. S. GADKARI
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court