Omkar Bhausaheb Irale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
Anticipatory bail application by a man named during investigation in a rape FIR concerning a mentally challenged victim. The court issued notice to the informant and granted interim relief: release on PR bond if arrested, subject to cooperation with investigation including blood samples and DNA testing.
What did the court decide?
Interim order: applicant to be released on bail on PR bond of ₹50,000 with sureties if arrested; directed to appear before IO on 05.07.2024, cooperate with investigation including blood samples, and n
What the court decided
901_ABA_1689_24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1689 OF 2024
Omkar Bhausaheb Irale … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w. Ms. Pallavi A. Karanjkar for applicant. Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 03rd JULY, 2024
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
- The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.0020 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024 registered at Police Station Kawathe-Mahankal, District Sangli for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the first instance, the name of the applicant is not even mentioned by the informant, who is the mother of the victim, as a person responsible for the act in question. In this case, the allegation is that the victim, who is a 42 year old mentally challenged daughter of the informant, was found to be pregnant and after persistent enquiries, she revealed the name of Panda More as the person responsible for her pregnancy. This led to registration of FIR.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Omkar Bhausaheb Irale
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
- respondent
Informant (respondent No.2)
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
14 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court