The State of Maharashtra v. Popat Tejraj Gandhi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 376, 420, 504, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Application stands rejected. (J. H. BHATIA, J)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra Versus Popat Tejraj Gandhi ... ... Applicant Respondent Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Applicant State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 P. C. : Heard the learned APP.
Prosecution seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, District-Pune on the apprehension that the respondent could be arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on a report lodged by prosecutrix Aruna Bingi alias Aruna Nahar, aged about 27 years.
It appears that when the anticipatory bail was granted on 16.07.2011, no offence was registered. The offence came to be registered on 29.07.2011 on the report lodged by the prosecutrix Aruna. It reveals that she was married to a person who was deaf and dumb, and therefore, she was not satisfied. She had left her husband and taken shelter in Mission Girls Home. Later on, sometime in February 2009, she joined service of the respondent who is an advocate. The respondent used to take her care and supported her in difficulties including at the time of death of her father. Later on, the respondent-accused offered to establish sexual relationship with her. She told the accused that he was already married and had children. However, he assured that he would take care of her in spite of his wife and children and by giving that assurance, he established sexual relationships MP 2 ABA800_11 with her. This continued for quite a long time. When she insisted him to marry her, he refused and it became clear that she was cheated. Then she disclosed this fact and lodged the report.
Taking into consideration the facts disclosed in the F.I.R., I do not find any substance for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 376, 420, 504, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Sep 2011. The bench was H BHATIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.