Allowed

Samadhan Lotan Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023ABA/615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Samadhan Lotan Chaudhari. The court examined contradictions in the informant statement regarding communication post-assault and unreliability of medical report to conclude the case arose from a dispute over consensual relations.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed and the order dated 25th April, 2023, confirming bail, was affirmed.

Samadhan Lotan Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

901-ABA-615-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2023

¶4

SAMADHAN LOTAN CHOUDHARI

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Applicant: Mr. B. S. Deshmukh
APP for Respondents: Mrs. G. L. Deshpande

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J

¶11

DATE:OCTOBER 11, 2023

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with
with C.R. No. 105 of 2023 registered with Parola Police

¶14

Station, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504, 506, 501
and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

2.First informant is the Forest Guard. She

¶16

claims that she is married but having disputes with her
husband and hence, they are staying separately. It is
alleged that on 08.04.2023 while she was on duty
Applicant came and obstructed her and also assaulted
her with some pointed weapon. It is further alleged
that Applicant had threatened her to keep physical

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

901-ABA-615-2023.odt

¶19

relations with him or else he will deface her. She
further has categorically stated in the report that
since last three years Applicant is keeping forcible
physical relations with her, however, now she is now
interested to continue with the same. There is
allegation that on 25.03.2023 Applicant committed
forcible sexual assault on her and also threatened to
kill and make her photographs viral. Due to this
threat, she did not complain about the incident,
however, she stopped having any communication with him.

¶20

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that
from the FIR it is clear that the informant is major
and married women and she is aware about the

¶21

consequences of keeping physical relationship. It is
his submission that period of three years for which
physical relations were maintained is long enough to
infer that it is a consensual relationship. It is his
further contention that even after lodging of the FIR
Applicant and informant are staying together and in
fact they have travelled together.

¶22

4.Learned APP opposed the application by

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

901-ABA-615-2023.odt

¶25

submitting that the earlier consensual physical
relationship, if any, would not give any right to the
Applicant to ravish the informant as particularly
stated in the FIR about the incident dated 25.03.2023.
It is also submitted that as far as the incident of
08.04.2023 is concerned, apart from the statement of
informant herself there is statement of eye witness who
has seen occurrence of incident. By referring to the
medical certificate, it is submitted that there are
abrasions caused to the informant which indicates
occurrence of the incident on 08.04.2023.

¶26

5.In order to ascertain as to whether there is
substance in the contention of the informant that on

¶27

25.03.2023 incident of forcible physical relation has
occurred with her and since then she had stopped having
communication with Applicant, CDR of mobile phones of
the Applicant as well as informant were called. The CDR
indicates that even after 25.03.2023 there is
communication between Applicant and informant and there
are incoming and outgoing calls on the mobile phone of
the informant. This indicates that the statement made
in the FIR about she having stopped communication with

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

901-ABA-615-2023.odt

¶30

Applicant owing to the incident of 25.03.2023 is not
correct. There is no dispute about the fact that both
Applicant and informant are major. There is substance
in the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant
that period of three years is long enough to infer
consensual physical relations between them.

¶31

6.As far as incident of 08.04.2023 is concerned,
perusal of the medical report indicates that even no
reference of occurrence of any incident of 08.04.2023
has been made to the medical officer while giving
history. It is practically impossible that the
informant does not give information about occurrence of
incident of 08.04.2023, if she was assaulted on that

¶32

day. Merely because, during the medical examination
abrasion found on her person, it cannot be inferred
that incident as alleged in the report has occurred. It
is pertinent to note that the informant is working as
Forest Guard. Having regard to the nature of work, the
causing of abrasions is very much possible.

¶33

7.In such circumstances, there is substance in
the contention of Counsel for the Applicant that this

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

901-ABA-615-2023.odt

¶36

could be a case of consensual physical relations and
false implication due to some dispute between them.
Hence, application stands allowed by confirming order
dated 25th April, 2023.

¶37

 (R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶38

Malani

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Samadhan Lotan Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Lotan Choudhari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikram Jalindar Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Juned Mansoor Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sangram Ganpati Kendre Vs Parvatibai W/O. Ganpati Kendre and Another

Balaji Narayanrao Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shriram Govindrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others