SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manoj Suresh Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1335 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2019

Manoj Suresh Jadhav …. Applicant
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. …. Respondents

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr. Nitesh Mohite for the Applicant.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State.
Dr. N.V.B. Pawaskar i/b. Mr. Vijaykumar B. Dighe for R.No.2.

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 13th JULY, 2021.

P. C. :-

. This is an Application under Section 389 of the Code of Cr.P.C. for

suspension of substantive sentence imposed by judgment dated

10/01/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in

Special SC No.299/2016.

2. The Applicant and the other co-accused have been convicted for

offences punishable under Section 376 r/w. 107 of Indian Penal Code

(IPC) 376 (D) 506 (II) r/w. 34 of IPC Section 12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and sentenced as

1/7
P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

under :-

(i) for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w. 107 of

the IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to

pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple

imprisonment of one month.

(ii) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D) r/w. 107

of the IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and

to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months.

(iii) for the offence punishable under Sections 506(II) r/w. 34 of

the IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay

fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

fifteen days.

(iv) for offence punishable under Section 11(i) and Section 12

of POCSO Act, 2012 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two

years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for fifteen days.

2/7

P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

(v) All the aforesaid substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

3. Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant states that

the victim had narrated the incident to her mother after considerable

delay. Furthermore, she had not disclosed the incident of rape. Hence,

the FIR lodged on 31/05/2016 was for offenses under Sections 506

r/w. 34 of IPC Section 12 17 of POCSO Act. He submits that the

allegations of rape were made as afterthought in view of strained

relationship with accused no.2, the maternal aunt of the victim who

had lodged complaint for offence punishable under Section 498A

against her husband i.e., the brother of the complainant and his family

members. He submits that there are several omissions, contradictions

and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix which have been

detailed in the order dated 04/12/2020 of this Court (Coram : Prakash

D. Naik, J.) while allowing the Criminal Application No.441/2019 and

enlarging the co-accused on bail. He submits that the other co-accused

has also been released on bail by order dated 08/04/2021 of this Court

(Coram : Revati Mohite Dere, J.) in Criminal Application No.470/2019.

He therefore urges that the Applicant is entitled for bail on the ground

of parity.

3/7

P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

4. Mr. Gavand, learned APP and Mr. Pawaskar, learned counsel for

Respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the Application. They

contend that the Applicant is the main accused involved in committing

rape. They contend that the role attributed to the Applicant is not

similar to that of the co-accused and hence, the Applicant is not

entitled for bail on the ground of parity. They contend that the victim

was a minor and the gravity of the offence would not justify grant of

bail.

5. I have perused the records and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties.

6. The victim had been to the house of her grand parents at

Mundwa, Pune on 13/04/2016. She returned to Buldhana, her

paternal home on 26/05/2016. She narrated to her mother

(complainant) several incidents wherein she had seen her maternal

aunt (accused no.2) having physical relationship with accused no.3.

The victim had also informed that accused no.2 had threatened her and

told her to keep physical relationship with accused no.1. Based on the

said information, the mother of the victim lodged the FIR on

4/7
P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

29/05/2016 based on which crime was registered against the Applicant

and the other accused for offenses punishable under Sections 506 of

IPC and Sections 12 17 of POCSO Act. The FIR does not make any

reference to the incident of rape. The victim, whose statement was

recorded on 01/06/2016 also did not attribute any such role to accused

no.1. The allegations of rape were made for the first time in the

supplementary statement recorded on 09/06/2016, though she and her

mother were in constant touch with the police till 04/06/2016.

7. In the supplementary statement, it is alleged that on 14/05/2016,

the accused no.2 who is the maternal aunt of the victim had taken her

to the flat belonging to her grand father. The accused no.2 pushed her

on the floor. Accused no.4 caught her legs, accused no.3 caught her

hands while the Applicant (Accused No.1) had sexual relationship with

her against her wish and without her consent. It is pertinent to note

that the accused no.2 who was allegedly instrumental in taking the

victim to the flat and was involved in catching her legs and one of the

co-accused who had caught hold of her hands while the accused no.1

was committing rape, have been released on bail. This Court (Coram :

Prakash D. Naik., J.) while enlarging the co-accused on bail has in

detail considered the evidence of the prosecutrix and her

5/7
P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

mother/complainant and has discussed the infirmities in their

evidence. Though it is argued that the Applicant was the main accused

who had committed rape, the conviction against the Applicant

(Accused No.1) and the other co-accused is for committing offense

under Section 376 r/w. 107 and 376(D) r/w. of the IPC. The Applicant

is not convicted independently for an offense under Section 376 of IPC.

The accused who had aided the Applicant have already been released

on bail. Having regard to the material omissions, contradictions and

discrepancies in the evidence, the Applicant is also entitled for bail. It

is also to be noted that the Applicant was on bail during the pendency

of the trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. Appeal

has been admitted and considering the fact that final disposal of the

Appeal is likely to take time, in my considered view, this is a fit case for

suspension of sentence pending hearing of the Appeal and enlarge the

Applicant on bail.

8. Hence, the Interim Application is allowed on following terms and

conditions :-

(a) The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail

bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two

6/7
P.H. Jayani 01 IA1335.2019.doc

sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court ;

(b) The Applicant shall report to the Trial Court, once in two months

on the day/date specified by the Trial Court, till the Appeal is finally

disposed of ;

(c) The Applicant shall not contact the victim, her family members,

complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case ;

(d) The Applicant shall keep the Trial Court informed of his current

address and mobile contact numbers and/or change of residence or

mobile details, if any, from time to time ;

(e) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the Trial

Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the

prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking

cancellation of bail.

9. The Interim Application stands disposed of in above terms.

Digitally
signed by

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
PREETI PREETI
JAYANI
H Date:

JAYANI 2021.07.14
17:07:51
+0530

7/7

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation