Bombay HC Rejects Bail to accused Who Raped a minor having two boyfriends

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1110 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2017

Shrikantsngh Sukhdev Singh
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra.

CORAM: A.M.BADAR,J
DATED: 21st September, 2017

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/accused on bail  during the pendency of   the   appeal   filed   by   him.   After   the   Trial   the applicant/accused   is   convicted   of   the   offence   punishable under section 5(n) r/w  6 of the Protection  of the Children from Sexual Offences Act  as well as under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.  He has been sentenced to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from directions to pay fine of Rs.2500/­.

2. Heard   the   learned   Advocate   appearing   for   the applicant/accused at sufficient length of time by taking me through the order passed by this court in Criminal Application No.1132 of 2016. The learned Advocate submitted that during the pendency of  the trial  the applicant/accused  was on bail and   he  has  not   misused   the   opportunity.     He   has  further argued that   there is delay in lodging the First Information Report and when the alleged victim of the crime in question was taken to shelter home she has not disclosed the incident of rape on her.  She was having two boy friends, with whom she   had   sexual   relations.   Therefore,   in   submission   of   the learned advocate for the applicant/accused, as there is no earning member at the house of the applicant,  he needs to be released on bail. The learned APP opposed the application.

READ  Whether parties can unilaterally withdraw from agreement entered before mediator?

3. I have carefully considered the submission   advanced and also perused copies of deposition as well as impugned judgment and order.  Particularly material brought on record from the cross examination of the victim, it is seen that she was a female child at the time of the incident  in  question. Her mother had deserted her father and therefore, she was required to be at the mercy of her aunt.   The applicant is husband of the  aunt of the victim a minor female child.  She has   categorically   stated   that   the   applicant   had   committed penetrative sexual assault  with her repeatedly.

4.   A woman may be having  easy virtue  but that does not mean that all and sundry  can take advantage of this fact. She has right to say no.  Therefore, even if, it is assume that the victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her.   She had not attained consenting age.   Unavailability of earning particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for suspension of sentence.

5. The   offence   alleged   is   serious.   After   due   trial   the applicant/accused is held guilty of the offence. Hence, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence the application is rejected.

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

( A.M. BADAR, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *