1
Cri. Bail Application No. 1267/ 2020
Namdev Gangaram Gangode..
Applicant/
Accused.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
through P.I. Dindori P.Stn.
(Cr. No. I 195 /2020)
..
Respondent.
Order below Exh.1
1.
This application has been filed by the applicant/accused
under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail in Crime
No.I 195/2020 registered at Dindori Police Station for the offences
punishable under section 376, 376(A), 354, 354(A), 448, 451 & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.
According to the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged by the
complainant/victim alleging therein that on 13.09.2020, she was at home
with her children.
respective work.
Her husband and sisterinlaw had gone for their
Around 1.00 p.m., the applicant/accused who is her
Mavas Sasra (fatherinlaw) came to her house and inquired about other
family members.
When he came to know that nobody is at home, he
forcefully hugged her and pushed her on the bed. He then removed her
clothes and his own and committed rape on her.
After committing the
act, he gave Rs.200/ to her and threatened her not to disclose the
incident to anybody.
In the evening she narrated the incident to her
family members. On questioning the applicant, he apologized for the act.
The matter was then reported to the police.
The applicant/accused was
arrested on 14.09.2020 and he is in custody since then.
2
3.
The learned counsel Mr. G.L. Bodke appearing for the
applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant and the victim were in
relationship. So the act complained was consensual. There was no force
on the part of the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the case on
account of political enmity. There is no even prima facie evidence on
record to show that he ever committed forceful act on the victim. The
learned counsel further says that their relationship was known to third
person and so out of fear, she refused to meet him. So, the contents of
the FIR are false. He is a married person. He has the responsibility of his
family. He is 57 years old person. He has no criminal antecedents. He is
ready to abide by all the terms & conditions imposed by this Court.
Hence, he prays to allow the application.
4.
The Investigating Officer has filed his Say on record at Exh.5
and strongly opposed the application stating that the victim is 20 years old
girl and the applicant is 57 years old.
The statement of the victim u/sec.
164 of the Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded. If the applicant is released on bail
there is a possibility that he may threat the complainant and tamper the
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the IO prays for rejection of the application.
The learned APP Smt. Bhide submitted her objections in line with the say
of the Investigating Officer.
5.
After hearing both the sides and considering the facts of the
case, it is difficult to believe that victim and the applicant were in love.
There is vast age difference between them. The investigation is at initial
stage and in progress. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant/accused at this stage. Accordingly, the application is hereby
rejected.
Date : 05.10.2020.
Sandhya
Sunil Nair
Digitally signed by
Sandhya Sunil Nair
Date: 2020.10.08
14:14:33 +0530
( Smt. S.S. Nair )
Addl. Sessions Judge2, Nashik.