IN APEAL/739/2023 v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Oct 2023
- Bench
- SANDIPKUMAR C MORE
Outcome
Bail granted
The applicant be released on bail on
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 376
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. However, it appears that the present applicant / accused was on bail throughout the trial. Moreover, the applicant herself has produced on record affidavit mentioning that she has no objection for release of the accused on bail during the (3) 914 Appln-3027.2023.odt pendency of…
Judgment
learned Counsel for the victim. It appears that the victim has also filed affidavit mentioning that compromise has taken place between herself and the applicant/accused.
At the request of learned A.P.P. the matter is kept back till 2.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m.
Heard learned A.P.P., learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and also the reply argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.
The applicant, who is the original accused, is seeking suspension of their substantive sentences of imprisonment for (2) 914 Appln-3027.2023.odt the offence punishable under Section 376 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.88/2017. The maximum punishment appears to be of 10 years under Section 376 of IPC.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it was actually a case of illicit relations, but as the husband of prosecutrix came on the spot at the time of incident, it was coloured as “rape” incident. He pointed out various statements made by the victim during her cross-examination. He further submitted that the appellant/accused was on bail throughout the trial.
On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application on the ground that the conviction is recorded by the learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record. Moreover, the testimony of prosecutrix is well corroborated by evidence of her husband. They also pointed out that the ambiguity found in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix has already been explained by way of re-examination.
Operative part
However, it appears that the present applicant / accused was on bail throughout the trial. Moreover, the applicant herself has produced on record affidavit mentioning that she has no objection for release of the accused on bail during the (3) 914 Appln-3027.2023.odt pendency of appeal. Though such affidavit cannot be considered here, but considering the fact that the applicant was on bail during the trial and has also deposited the fine amount, following order is passed ORDER (i) The application is hereby allowed and substantive sentences of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, imposed upon this applicant in Sessions Case No. 88/2017 is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal. (ii) The applicant be released on bail on execution of his P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount (iii) Bail in lower Court. (iv) Application is accordingly disposed of. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) vd_dhirde
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The applicant be released on bail on
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 376.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Oct 2023. The bench was SANDIPKUMAR C MORE.
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.