Allowed

Rahul Pandurang Sanap v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2023ABA/564/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to alleged assailant in a sexual harassment case pending investigation. Bail granted on strict conditions including appearance dates and restrictions on tampering with evidence or witnesses, noting reasonable doubt in allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties; appearance on specified dates; cooperation with investigation; no inducement given or evidence tampered.

Rahul Pandurang Sanap Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

36-aba564-2023 with IA.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2023

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.07.04 18:47:53 +0530

¶6

Rahul Pandurang Sanap… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.788 OF 2023 IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2023

¶9

Komal Kishor Khedekar… Applicant
In the matter between
Rahul Pandurang Sanap… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents

¶10

Ms. Angela Singh with Mr. Anuj Singh i/by SBG Law
for the applicant in ABA.

¶11

Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni for the applicant in IA.

¶12

Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for respondent No.1/State.

¶13

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶14

DATED:JULY 4, 2023

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-002 of
2023 dated 2 January 2023 registered with Mundhwa Police
Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A,
354-D, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶17

¶18

36-aba564-2023 with IA.doc

¶19

1860, the applicant is seeking relief of pre-arrest bail under
Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶20

2.The victim lodged a report alleging that she was working as
HR executive in Marriot Suites. The applicant was her senior. Since
October 2022, he started making sexual advance and passed lewd
remarks. On 12 December 2022 he called her to his cabin made
gestures and outraged her modesty. He also demanded sexual
relations. He threatened her not to disclose it to anybody. On 13
December 2022, she send message to General Manager and sought
appointment. She narrated the incident to him. She was not
informed whether any action was taken. On 22 December 2022
the applicant again repeated same incident. On 24 December
2022, co-accused Vinod came to her cabin along with applicant
and made gestures and also passed filthy comments. Both of them
threatened her to kill. On 26 December 2022 she complained
about behavior of the applicant to senior and informed that she
want to resign. On 27 December 2022 she was followed home by
the applicant. She stopped going on work from 31 December 2022.
The applicant, therefore, lodged complaint on 2 January 2023.

¶21

3.The applicant, therefore, filed application under Section 438
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking pre-arrest
protection before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be
rejected by order dated 3 February 2023. The applicant, therefore,
filed present anticipatory bail application.

¶22

4.According to applicant, he has been falsely implicated. No
incident as alleged took place. Relying on transcript of WhatsApp

¶23

¶24

36-aba564-2023 with IA.doc

¶25

chat between the applicant and informant during relevant dates,
i.e. 12 December 2022 to 27 December 2022, he submitted that
there is no indication in the WhatsApp chat regarding alleged
incident. He, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of
the applicant is not necessary.

¶26

5.Learned advocate for the victim submitted that the offence is
serious. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Statement recorded under Section 164 is yet to be recorded. She is
ready to depose against the applicant giving details of incidents.
According to him, therefore, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is necessary.

¶27

6.Having perused the material on record, it appears that there
is reasonable doubt about the allegations made against the
applicant. The investigating agency has produced on record
transcript of WhatsApp chat between the applicant and informant
for the month of December 2022. The alleged incident, according
to informant, took place from 12 December 2022 to 27 December
2022. Perusal of WhatsApp chat indicates normal exchanges of
messages between the applicant and informant on the date of
incident. Except allegations in the report, there is no material on
record supporting the allegations. Therefore, in my opinion, the
applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of relief under
Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Hence,
following order:

¶28

a)In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R.
No.I-002 of 2023 dated 2 January 2023 registered with Mundhwa

¶29

¶30

36-aba564-2023 with IA.doc

¶31

Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 354,
354-A, 354-D, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the
amount of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount;

¶32

b)The applicant shall remain present before the investigating
officer on 10, 12 and 14 July 2023 between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00
p.m. and thereafter as and when called by the concerned
investigating officer;

¶33

c)The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

¶34

d)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;

¶35

v)The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police
investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;

¶36

vi)The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond,
furnish his address and mobile number to the investigating officer,
and the court concerned, and shall not change the residence till
the final disposal of the case;

¶37

7.The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above
terms. No costs.

¶38

¶39

36-aba564-2023 with IA.doc

¶40

8.In view of disposal of the anticipatory bail application,
nothing survives in the interim application and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.

¶41

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶42

Rahul Pandurang Sanap v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Pandurang Sanap v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmesh Wadhwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Kisan Motewar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Neeta Vijay Pachpute and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amruta Tushar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sheela Sushil Kumar Madhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra