Allowed

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jun 2023ABA/783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed multiple anticipatory bail applications filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. by applicants apprehending arrest in a cognizance of sexual offences and cheating. The Court noted a delay in investigation and found no need for custodial interrogation, imposing conditions regarding reporting and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed on the terms of furnishing bail bonds, reporting to the Investigating Officer, and not interfering with witnesses.

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

24(B) ABA783.2019.doc

¶2

P.H. Jayani

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 783 OF 2019

¶5

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar … Applicant

¶6

v/s. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 875 OF 2019

¶8

Shanyog Shriniwas Gautam … Applicant v/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶10

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2742 OF 2019

¶11

Jalil Ahmed Budaye … Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶12

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2742 OF 2019

¶15

Rev. Fr. Benedict Kerketta

¶16

Rev. Fr. Benedict Kerketta … Intervenor In the matter between :- Jalil Ahmed Budaye … Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶17

Mr. Sujit Mane a/w. Mr. Vincent D’Silva a/w. for the Applicant in ABA/562/2019. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State.

¶18

Mr. Meghshyam Narvekar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Naik for the Applicants in ABA/783/2019, ABA/875/2019, ABA/2742/2019 and for the Respondent No.2 in ABA/562/2019. Mr. Dinesh Vishwakarma a/w. Vincent D’Silva for the

¶19

1/4

¶20

P.H. Jayani 24(B) ABA783.2019.doc

¶21

Intervenor in IA/523/2020.

¶22

Ms. Smita Patil, Dy.S.P., CID, CBD Belapur a/w. Mr. Vishal Sawant, PI present.

¶23

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 08^th JUNE, 2023.

¶24

P. C. :-

¶25

. The Applicants seek pre-arrest bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in C.R.No.46/2019 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under section 384 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the Applicants, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Intervenor. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶27

The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by one Fr. Benedict Karketta. A perusal of the records prima facie reveal that one of the Assistant Teachers of the school had lodged the FIR in the year 2019 against the Principal of the school alleging that he had outraged her modesty in the year 2013-14 and sexually abused her in the year 2017. She had claimed that she had recorded the intimate relationship between her and the accused in C.R.No.23/2019 in a spy camera. It is the case of

¶28

2/4

¶29

P.H. Jayani 24(B) ABA783.2019.doc

¶30

the prosecution that the prosecutrix had handed over the spy camera to these Applicants who have used the said video recording to blackmail the Principal and obtain question papers. Learned APP states that the prosecutrix had not handed over the spy camera or the original recording to the Investigating Officer but had handed over only a pen drive.

¶31

This Court (Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.) by order dated 16/12/2019 had granted interim bail to the Applicants. Learned APP states that pursuant to the said order, the Applicants have reported to the Investigating Officer and that they have been interrogated. No case is made out for custodial interrogation. It is seen that though the crime is of the year 2019, the investigation has not been completed till date. No justifiable reasons are given for the delay in conducting investigation. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my considered view, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the Applications are allowed on the following terms and conditions :-

¶32

(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicants in C.R.No.46/2019 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount ;

¶33

3/4

¶34

24(B) ABA783.2019.doc

¶35

P.H. Jayani

¶36

(b) The Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer

¶37

as and when required ;

¶38

(c) The Applicants shall not interfere with the Complainant and the other witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case in any manner ;

¶39

(d) The Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of their current address and mobile contact numbers, and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time.

¶40

Applications for Anticipatory Bail stand disposed of. Interim Application stands disposed of in view of disposal of ABAs.

¶41

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶42

4/4

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar 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

Irfan Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.

Sameer Suleman Shama Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mangala Ashok Tike Vs Sujata Sanjay Dhonde and Anr.

Fr. Sabu Thomas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yasin Julfikar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shanyog Shriniwas Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra