Dipesh Nilu Nimala vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Both these appeals are filed against one and the same order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar below Exhibit-4 in Special Case No. 05 of 2024. Both these appeals are therefore being disposed of by this common order.

¶27

The appellants Dipesh N. Nimala and Mahesh P. Macchi are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid special case and are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376-D and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶28

By the order impugned, the learned Special Judge has rejected the bail applications filed by the present appellants.

¶29

The prosecution case in brief is that, on the date of incident which took place on 01.12.2024, appellant

¶30

2 of 7

¶31

Pramod S.Lakare

¶32

3-APEAL-380-2S025.doc

¶33

Mahesh Macchi called the victim from an unknown number and threatened her that he will disclose to her husband about her alleged illicit affair with one autorickshaw driver Mayur, who routinely drove the victim to and fro between her house and the railway station for work. On the same day at about 12.02 am, appellant Mahesh Macchi called the victim to show her some pictures as proof of the alleged illicit affair. Accordingly, the victim met the appellant Dipesh Nimala who took her on his bike to a secluded place outside the village. At that time, Appellant Mahesh Macchi was present there along with the other coaccused. Upon confronting the victim about her alleged illicit affair, which she denied, Appellant Mahesh Macchi got infuriated and slapped the victim. Thereafter, the co-accused forcibly held the victim by her hands while Appellant Mahesh Macchi disrobed her. The appellants and co-accused thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim multiple times, during which Appellant Mahesh Macchi clicked the pictures of the victim. Subsequently,

¶34

3 of 7

¶35

Pramod S.Lakare

¶36

3-APEAL-380-2S025.doc

¶37

appellant Mahesh Macchi dropped the victim back to her house at about 2.30am. On 04.12.2023, the victim lodged the report on the basis of which the present crime came to be registered against the Appellant and co-accused.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2victim.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a delay of 3 days in lodging the report and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that the version of the victim is not probable as the victim will not leave her six years old daughter alone at home and accompany the appellant Dipesh Nimala outside the village at such late hours at night. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim does not support the prosecution case, as there are no injuries consistent with the alleged version of the

¶40

4 of 7

¶41

Pramod S.Lakare

¶42

3-APEAL-380-2S025.doc

¶43

victim. It is, thus, submitted that the appellants be released on bail.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-victim submit that the appellants are involved in a serious crime of gang rape. It is submitted that the appellants along with the coaccused blackmailed the victim by threatening to disclose to her husband about the alleged illicit affair and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. It is submitted that after the incident the victim was traumatized and was therefore hesitant to lodge a report in absence of her husband, who was working on a boat at the time of the incident, hence there is a delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that, prior to the occurrence of the incident, the victim accompanied appellant Dipesh Nimala only because she trusted him, as he is her relative. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime the appellants may not be released on bail.

¶45

5 of 7

¶46

Pramod S.Lakare

¶47

3-APEAL-380-2S025.doc

¶48

I have perused the medical report of the victim. No injuries were found on the person of the victim. The appellants are in jail for more than one and half years. There are no other criminal antecedents. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellants on bail, subject to certain conditions. Hence, the following order:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

A] The Appeals are allowed.

¶51

B] The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is set aside.

¶52

C] The Appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees TwentyFive Thousand Only) each with one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶53

D] The Appellants shall not enter into the limits of Tal. Dahanu, till conclusion of the trial.

¶54

6 of 7

¶55

Pramod S.Lakare

¶56

3-APEAL-380-2S025.doc

¶57

E] The Appellants shall provide their residential addresses and contact numbers to Vangaon Police Station.

¶58

F] The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶59

G] Liberty is granted to the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of bail in case the Appellants commit breach of any of the above conditions.

¶60

H] The Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶61

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶62

7 of 7

¶63

Pramod S.Lakare

Dipesh Nilu Nimala v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipesh Nilu Nimala v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Masum Sameed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra

Prithviraj Sanjay Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Manishkumar Kailashchandra Dhoot vs State of Maharashtra

Urvil Piyush Shah vs the State of Maharashtra

Adesh Vasant Ulvekar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shambhu Chhatra Malla vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.