✦ Bombay High Court

Shrikrushna v. (IN JAIL)

V M DESHPANDE, AMIT BORKAR2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The appeal is allowed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. The entire charge-sheet is placed on record. Prima facie, the C.D.R. report which shows that the appellant and the victim were in touch with each other. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that the custodial presence is not…

Judgment

Cause title

Shrikrushna s/o. Shriram Tale, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Labourer, R/o. At Malkapur Pangra, Tq. Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana. ------

VERSUS

----- …. APPELLANT (IN JAIL)

2. State of Maharashtra, Through P. S.O., Sakharkherda, Tq. Sindkhed Raja, Distt.: Buldhana. XYZ, Victim (Informant) in the Crime No.363/2021 registered before P. S. O., Sakharkherda, Distt. Buldhana. …. RESPONDENTS ________________________________________________________________

Shri S. A. Choudhari, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 12.04.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

[PER : V. M. DESHPANDE ] , J.

3.

Heard. ADMIT. Shri T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in view of the written instructions given to him by Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station Sakharkherda stated before the Court that 2 Cr.Appeal No.144.2022-J notice of this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Atrocities Act, 1989’) is duly served upon the respondent – victim. In spite of the service, nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 neither victim is personally present.

4.

This appeal is filed by the appellant since his application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned Trial Court. This appeal is under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act, 1989. The respondent No.2 is the victim. From the report, it is clear that she is aged about 26 years and a married woman having one son and one daughter. She lodged First Information Report against the appellant and his wife Savitri and his mother Kushiwantabai. The allegations against the appellant is that he has committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her on 03.10.2021 without her consent. The investigation is complete, charge-sheet is already filed. The appellant is in jail since

18.11.2021.

5.

The entire charge-sheet is placed on record. Prima facie, the C.D.R. report which shows that the appellant and the victim were in touch with each other. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that the custodial presence is not at all necessary in view of the filing of the charge-sheet. Hence, we pass the 3 Cr.Appeal No.144.2022-J following order : i] The appeal is allowed. ii] The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar, District Buldana below Exh.14 dated 03.02.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii] The appellant Shrikrushna s/o. Shriram Tale be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. iv] The appellant shall mark his presence by attending Police Station Sakharkherda, Distt. Buldhana once in a month preferably on last Tuesday of every month until culmination of trial. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of

7.

accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE RGurnule MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:13.04.2022 13:31

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Atrocities Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments