1 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1210 OF 2018
RAVINDRA SULTAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
…..
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.D.Ghayal, A.P.P. for Respondent.
…..
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.
DATE : 22/10/2018
…..
ORAL ORDER :
1. The applicant/accused has moved this application
u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking release on bail in
connection with the offences u/s 376(A),363,366(A) of
I.P.C. and u/s 3,4,7 and 8 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short, ‘POCSO Act’]
registered with Police Station Jamner, District : Jalgaon
vide Crime No. 37/2018.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned
A.P.P. for State. Perused the copy of charge sheet.
3. Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for applicant
submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. together
with material gathered by the prosecution during the
course of investigation make out no case punishable u/s
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
2 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
376(A),363,366(A) of I.P.C. and section 3,4,7 and 8 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It
is pointed out that as per the complaint made, the
prosecutrix has returned to her house at Ambilhol, Taluka
Jamner, District Jalgaon on 22/03/2018 from the house of
her sister residing at Taradi, Taluka Parola, District
Jalgaon where she has gone to take care of her sister, who
was pregnant. On 19/04/2018 as the prosecutrix was
found missing after she left the house for collecting
firewood, the complaint was lodged on 23/04/2018. In
the complaint lodged, nothing was alleged against the
applicant. Since the son-in-law of the father of
prosecutrix informed the complainant that the applicant
who is resident of Tardi is also missing, the applicant was
implicated in the case on the basis of suspicion. It is
submitted that the prosecutrix has given three different
versions about the incident. The entire story of the
prosecutrix and more particularly the version of the
prosecutrix is not only contradictory but raises serious
doubt as to truthfulness of the case of prosecution against
the applicant.
4. It is pointed out that as per the own version of the
prosecutrix, she went with the applicant on promise to
marry with her. It has come on record that the applicant
and prosecutrix were well acquainted with each other and
worked together as labourers employed in agricultural
field for cutting sugarcane. As per the fact disclosed by
the prosecutrix, she went with the applicant at
Aurangabad. On 03/05/2018 the applicant told her that
her brother-in-law has lodged complaint at Jamner police
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
3 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
station and offence is registered against him and they are
required to visit the police station. He brought her to
police station on 04/05/2018. In the back-ground of the
fact disclosed by the prosecutrix and the statement of
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and
more particularly the statement of Anil Devidas Chavan,
the person who employed the applicant and prosecutrix at
the construction site, it clearly indicate that there was
absolutely no element of compulsion and taking away the
prosecutrix on the part of applicant so as to attract the
offence of kidnapping and abduction. By referring the
statement of Anil Devidas Chavan during the course of
investigation, it is pointed out that the prosecutrix has
disclosed her identity as wife of applicant and both of
them worked at the construction site and resided together
in the tin shed. He has also stated that the applicant and
prosecutrix worked together along with other labourers
working on the construction site.
5. In this back-ground, learned counsel for applicant
submits that the conduct of prosecutrix itself falsifies the
entire case against the applicant of kidnapping, abduction
and forcible sexual intercourse. It is submitted that
prosecutrix had ample opportunity to run away, if she
was really taken away by the applicant against her wish
and desire or detained by causing threat. The fact that
the prosecutrix did not attempt to run away nor raised
shout though resided in crowded locality and worked with
other labourers, itself sufficient to draw inference that the
allegations made against the applicant are false and by
way of after-thought as well as made under the pressure
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
4 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
from her father and other relatives. It is further submitted
that the father of prosecutrix has filed affidavit before the
Sessions Court that he intend to perform the marriage of
his daughter I.e. prosecutrix with the applicant after she
attained the age of majority. It is submitted that the
charge sheet is already filed. The applicant is not having
any track record of involvement in commission of crime
prior to registration of offence against him. Since the
applicant himself appeared before the police with the
prosecutrix, there is no apprehension of his abscondence
and pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. In this back-
ground, learned counsel urged to enlarge the applicant on
bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposed the
application with the contention that at the time of
commission of offence, the prosecutrix was minor. The
evidence collected by the prosecution and more
particularly the statement of prosecutrix itself indicate that
the applicant has compelled her to go along with him by
making promise to marry with her and committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her. It is further submitted that
considering the age of the prosecutrix, the consent of
prosecutrix is immaterial. It is submitted that in case the
applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that
the applicant may pressurize the prosecution witnesses
and may abscond.
7. Having appreciated the facts of the case in the light
of overall case of the prosecution, I am of the view that
the case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. It is
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
5 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
apparent from the statement of prosecutrix that she was
acquainted with the applicant/accused. They had worked
together as labourers employed for cutting sugarcane.
Prior to the incident, she was residing at village Tardi
where she has gone to take care of her elder sister who
was pregnant. The applicant is resident of village Tardi.
The prosecutrix is about to complete the age of majority.
The evidence gathered by the prosecution is sufficient to
draw inference that the applicant and prosecutrix were
having affair much prior to the incident. On the day of
incident, the prosecutrix has left the house and went along
with the applicant to Aurangabad. They stayed together
for a considerable time. As per the statement of witness
recorded during the course of investigation i.e. Anil
Devidas Chavan clearly indicates that the prosecutrix has
disclosed her identity as wife of the applicant before she
was employed on the construction site. Both of them
stayed together in the tin shed nearby the construction
site. She was working with other labourers employed for
construction work. The prosecutrix had ample opportunity
to run away or to disclose persons with whom she was
working that she was brought against her wishes by the
applicant. The conduct of the prosecutrix itself sufficient
to draw inference that she left the house on her own
accord. No element of force or compulsion employed on
the part of the applicant to give up the custody of her
parents. The report of medical examination indicate that
sexual intercourse was consensual. No body marks of
physical violence were noticed during the medical
examination. The prosecutrix is fully grown up girl and at
the verge of attaining the age of majority. Thus,
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
6 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
considering the overall facts of the case, I am of the view
that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. There
is no propriety to detain the applicant in jail till conclusion
of trial. It will take long time to proceed with the trial. If
the applicant is released on bail, there is no likelihood of
witnesses being pressurized or the applicant may abscond
to avoid the trial. It is pertinent to note that the applicant
himself appeared before police with prosecutrix as soon as
he learnt about the registration of offence against him.
In that view, I am inclined to allow the application and
pass the following order.
ORDER
[i] The application is allowed.
[ii] The applicant viz. Ravindra Sultan Chavan arrested
in Crime No. 37/2018 u/s 376(A),363,366(A) of
I.P.C. and u/s 3,4,7 and 8 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered with
Police Station Jamner, District : Jalgaon be released
on bail on his furnishing bail in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] with
one or two sureties in the like amount on following
conditions.
[a] The applicant shall not indulged into any act
amounting to tampering or pressurizing the
prosecution witnesses.
[b] Till conclusion of trial the applicant shall attend
police station Jamner, District Jalgaon on last day of
every month between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon to
record his presence before the Officer in-charge of
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
7 Bail Appln. 1210.2018
police station.
[c] The applicant shall furnish the names and addresses
of his three close relatives with their phone
numbers.
[d] The applicant shall not indulged into commission of
any act amounting to criminal offence during the
period of bail.
[iii] In case of breach of any of above condition, the
prosecution will be at liberty to move the Court for
cancellation of bail.
[iv] Bail to be furnished in the Sessions Court.
8. The application disposed of in above terms.
[V.L.ACHLIYA,]
JUDGE
KNP/Bail Appln. 1210.2018
::: Uploaded on – 24/10/2018 27/10/2018 00:55:04 :::
