Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2188 (BOM)

Pravin Sheshrao Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

2012-11-22

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2012
JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The applicant was accused of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that he should not enter village Kalambeshwar. 5. It is alleged by respondent No.2 Ku. Mangal Tajne, who was victim of the offence, that the applicant on 12th April, 2012 entered her house and outraged her modesty. Offences punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were registered vide Crime No. 47 of 2012 on the complaint made by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail on the ground that the applicant had committed breach of conditions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his impugned order dated 29th May, 2012, accepted the contention of respondent No.2 and cancelled the bail and directed the applicant to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within fifteen days from the date of the order. 6. During the course of hearing of the present application, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 was unable to tell the Court as to whether any other witness was available to corroborate the testimony of respondent No.2 in First Information Report No. 47 of 2012. At the same time the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been instructed by the Investigating Officer as to whether the case is fit for chargesheet or not. In the circumstances, only on the basis of first information report without there being any material on record it was not fair on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to cancel the bail. 7. I have gone through the affidavit of respondent No.1. It appears that respondent No.1, who are prosecuting agency, are not very serious in supporting the prayer of respondent No.2. In this regard, the Court has noted that there was consensual sex between the applicant and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, however, had alleged that she had sexual intercourse with the applicant only because the applicant had promised to marry her. There is a child due to physical relationship between the applicant and respondent No.2. The chargesheet has been filed in the month of June, 2012. There is no untoward incident after the incident dated 12th April, 2012. Respondent No.2, however, had alleged that she had sexual intercourse with the applicant only because the applicant had promised to marry her. There is a child due to physical relationship between the applicant and respondent No.2. The chargesheet has been filed in the month of June, 2012. There is no untoward incident after the incident dated 12th April, 2012. As far as the incident dated 12th April, 2012 is concerned, I have already stated that respondent No.1 do not appear to be interested in supporting respondent No.2. Therefore, it is possible that there is a very weak evidence in First Information Report No. 47 of 2012. For all these reasons I pass the following order. 8. Order dated 29th May, 2012 is set aside and the earlier order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to the applicant is restored. Interim relief stands vacated. The revision application accordingly stands disposed of.