Dismissed

Xyz v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024APEAL/778/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging an order granting bail to an accused in cases under the IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court rejected the appeal, finding the bail order reasonable. The Court noted the appellant could approach the trial Court for witness protection or cancellation of bail based on alleged threats.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal rejected; bail order of trial Court upheld.

Xyz Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:899

¶2

PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.778 OF 2023

¶5

XYZ ..APPELLANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------

¶6

Adv. Neha R. Kokare for the appellant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State. PSI Vijay Kolhe, Yawat Police Station, Pune Rural.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE : JANUARY 9, 2024

¶9

JUDGMENT :

¶10

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

¶11

The appellant by this Criminal Appeal challenges an order dated 13.04.2023 enlarging the respondent No.2original accused No.1 on bail in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 385, 389, 504, 506, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 3(1), 3(1)(2), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

¶12

1/3

¶13

PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship appears to be consensual in nature. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the FIR it is mentioned that the victim was taken to the lodge only once whereas the trial Court erroneously proceeded on the footing that the accused had taken the informant to the lodge on several occasions.

¶15

I have gone through the order of the trial Court. Respondent No.2-original accused No.1 is on bail since 13.04.2023. The reasons which prevailed with the trial Court while enlarging the applicant on bail finds mention in the impugned order. The bail granted is on a sound consideration. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant however submitted that the accused No.2 who was granted anticipatory bail as well as the present respondent No.2-accused No.1 are threatening the appellant and such averments are found in ground No.9 of the Appeal memo. Though I am not inclined

¶17

2/3

¶18

PMB 20.apeal.778-23.doc

¶19

to interfere with the order of the trial Court, it is necessary to observe that it is open for the appellant to bring this fact to the notice of the trial Court. Based on the facts which are placed for consideration before the trial Court as regards the threats issued, the trial Court can always consider to grant of witness protection to the appellant or for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions. It is open for the appellant to move an application for cancellation of bail before the trial Court on the ground that the threats are being issued by the accused or that there is an attempt to tamper with the witnesses. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The trial Court may pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶20

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Criminal Appeal is rejected.

¶21

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶22

3/3

Xyz v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xyz v. the 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

Kailash Sadashiv Surve Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rupesh Shiwaji Botkundale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagdish Kashinath Botkundale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra Baban Kanthe Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Lavkush Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amir Abulesh Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.