Appeal against rejection of bail in a rape and SC/ST Act case. The Court found the Sessions Judge ignored CDR showing neither accused nor complainant were at the lodge at the time of the alleged incident, held the order perverse for non-application of mind, set it aside, and enlarged the appellant on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2024
Manik Suresh Narayanpethakar … Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Viresh Purwant for the Appellant.
Ms. Shilpa Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Priyal Sarda a/w Mr. Shubham Sane & Mr. Rajesh Ranglani for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Pradeep Zalte , API is present.
Mr. Sharad D ., HC 758 is present.
Mr. Ashpak Shaikh , HC 1826 is present.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 12 SEPTEMBER 2024.
P.C. :
___Page No.1 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
MANESONALIDILIP Digitallysigned byMANESONALIDILIPDate:2024.09.1218:32:12+0530
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
Police Station for offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
___Page No.2 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
most striking feature of the report of Sub Divisional Police Officer is that the CDR of the Phone of accused shows his presence at Rupa Bhavani Road, Budhavar Peth, Solapur at 6.00 p.m. on 16 February 2024 which is the time at which the crime was allegedly committed. So far as the Complainant is concerned, her CDR record reveals that she was travelling between Bhigwan to Pune at the same time. Thus, presence of neither the accused nor Complainant at the concerned lodge is reflected from the CDR of both of them. In fact from the CDR record it appears that the Complainant was at distance more than 150 kms away from Solapur at the relevant time. Furthermore, though the Complainant alleges that the accused made a phone call to her on the date of incident, the CDR does not indicate even a single phone call between them on the concerned date. Considering the stage at which as well as the limited purpose for which the report is being considered, it is not necessary to make reference to each and every inconsistency highlighted in the said report. The report was placed before the learned Judge while deciding the application filed by the Appellant for bail. Rather than discussing the contents of the report, the learned Judge has relied upon four Affidavits filed at the behest of the Complainant and has laid stress on the affidavit of the Complainant for the purpose of denying bail to the Appellant. In my view, the learned Judge ought to have considered the CDR of Appellant and Complainant which clearly indicate their absence from the scene of crime at the relevant time. Perusal of the order of the learned Judge however indicates that no consideration is given to the said vital aspect. The Order of the learned Judge thus suffers from complete non application of mind and vice of perversity.
___Page No.3 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
___Page No.4 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
a) Order dated 2 September 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur is set aside.
b) The Appellant who is arrested in connection with CR No. 273 of 2024 registered with Solapur Taluka Police Station for offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w) (ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
c) Appellant shall furnish identity and address proof of himself and of his two blood relatives while furnishing sureties.
___Page No.5 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
Sonali Mane
905-APEAL-999-2024.docx
d) Appellant shall attend Trial Court regularly unless exempted from personal appearance.
e) Appellant shall not pressurize the informant or any other witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case nor shall tamper with the evidence either directly or indirectly.
f) The Appellant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Trial Court as well as to the concerned Police Station in writing.
g) The Appellant shall cooperate with the completion of investigations by remaining present before the investigating officer as and when summoned.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.6 of 6 ___ 12 September 2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge's order rejecting bail under Section 483 BNSS suffered from perversity by ignoring CDR evidence showing the accused and complainant were absent from the crime scene.
Whether the appellant was entitled to bail given CDR inconsistencies and entitlement to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Manik Suresh Narayanpethakar
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
