Dismissed

Rohan Balaso Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Nov 2023ABA/991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a Child Rape case involving sexual intercourse and forced abortion allegations. The court noted that the relationship appeared consensual and forced abortion allegations were belied by WhatsApp transcripts.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon execution of PR Bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties, subject to conditions against tampering.

Rohan Balaso Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:33688

¶2

25-ABA-991-23.DOC

¶3

Sayali Upasani

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 991 OF 2023

¶6

Rohan B. Jagtap ...Applicant

¶7

Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Amit Icham, Ashish Satpute, Piyush Toshnival, Satyajeet Mane, Pranav Patil, for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for State.

¶10

Ms. Megha Bajoria, for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.

¶12

DATED:- 2^nd NOVEMBER, 2023

¶13

PC:-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶15

This application is preferred for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 102 of 2023, registered with Saswad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 417, 419, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

¶16

1/4

¶17

25-ABA-991-23.DOC

¶18

When the application was listed before this Court on 6^th April, 2023, this Court was persuaded to grant interim protection. In the intervening period, the investigation seems to have been completed and charge-sheet has been lodged.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations in the FIR indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual. As the parties fell apart, respondent No. 2 lodged a report with an exaggerated version making allegations of forcing her to abort. The learned Counsel invited the attention of the Court to the transcript of the conversation between the applicant and the first informant on WhatsApp, which according to him, negates the allegations in the FIR.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that the first informant and the applicant were in a relationship. However, the applicant had concealed his true identity. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 made an endeavour to explain away the messages on WhatsApp as an act of venting frustration on the part of the first informant.

¶21

The learned APP also resisted the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

¶22

I have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant and the first informant were in a relationship as they were introduced by the sister of the

¶23

2/4

¶24

25-ABA-991-23.DOC

¶25

applicant. It also prima facie appears that sexual intercourse was consensual. Even after the true identity of the applicant was

¶26

disclosed, the applicant and the first informant had physical relations for a long period. Material on record does not prima facie indicate that the consent of the first informant for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of facts, especially after the true identity of the applicant was disclosed. The allegations of forcing the first informant to abort the foetus by making her consume a pill are prima facie belied by the transcript of the conversation on WhatsApp.

¶27

Since the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been lodged, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of

¶28

the applicant does not seem to be warranted. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶29

Hence, the following order:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

I) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection

¶32

with C.R. No. 102 of 2023, registered with Saswad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 417, 419, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,

¶33

the applicant be released on bail on executing a PR Bond in

¶34

3/4

¶35

25-ABA-991-23.DOC

¶36

the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶37

II) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant, any of her family members, any witness or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶38

III) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and attend Saswad police station as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶39

IV) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶40

V) The application stands disposed.

¶41

4/4

Rohan Balaso Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Balaso Jagtap 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

Harnish Surendra Chadderwala Vs State of Maharashtra

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Farjin Shahid Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Akshay Balasaheb Badade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pankesh Kalyan Tandel Vs Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube Vs the State of Maharashtra