1

901-ABA.845-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2022

1. SUNIL ZELSING PAWARA

2. UDAY @ CHHOTU SUNIL PAWARA

3. CHHATTARSING RAMDAS RAVAT (PAWARA)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Advocates for Applicants : Mr. Bhargav B. Kulkarni & Mr. Tapan

K. Sant.

APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.

Advocate for Victim-Respondent No.3 : Ms. Kalpana S.

Sonpawale (Appointed).

...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 23.08.2022

PER COURT

:-

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned

APP for the respondent / State and the learned counsel for the

victim.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicants did not press the

application for applicant No.1 - SUNIL ZELSING PAWARA and

seeks leave to withdraw his application. Leave granted. His

anticipatory bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that

applicant Nos.2 and 3 have no role to play. The applicants and

the complainant are the residents of the same locality. They

2

901-ABA.845-22.odt

had a civil dispute. Hence, false allegations have been levelled

against them that they were taking the photographs of the

daughter of the complainant. It was a concocted story. The

applicants never took the photographs as alleged nor entered

the house of the complainant. The complainant’s family was

most aggressive. The police made an inquiry, but did not

register the crime. The serious allegations of outraging the

modesty of a minor girl have been levelled. Therefore, the

applicants had to approach the learned Magistrate under the

order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He would submit

that the police have already seized the mobile handset of the

other co-accused but nothing was found. Considering the

allegations, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not

required. Hence, they may be released on anticipatory bail.

4.

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He

has referred to the statement of the victim under Section 164

of the Cr.P.C. and argued that there are direct allegations

against the applicants that they used to take the photographs

of the victim girl. Therefore, the mobile handset of the

applicants is necessary to be recovered.

5.

The learned counsel for the victim has argued that the

applicants and the complainant are the residents of the same

3

901-ABA.845-22.odt

locality. There is danger to the life of the complainant and her

family. Therefore, the applicants may not be released on bail.

6.

Perused the papers. It appears that the FIR was

consisting of 2-3 dates. It is very strange that the police did

not register the offences for cognizable and serious offences.

Be that as it may, the record reveals that there is no specific

allegations against the present applicants that they were

involved in the alleged crime. The prosecution has also no

evidence that the applicants posted the photographs of the

victim girl to the third person. Therefore, the applicants have

sent the photographs of the victim. Considering the allegations

levelled against the applicants, the applicants have a good case

for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i)

The application is partly allowed.

(ii)

In the event of arrest, applicant Nos.2. UDAY @

CHHOTU SUNIL PAWARA and 3. CHHATTARSING

RAMDAS RAVAT (PAWARA), be released on bail

on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Thousand only) each with one solvent

surety in the like amount each in Crime No.64 of

2022, registered with Police Station Shirpur

Taluka, District Dhule for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 354(d), 452, 323, 504, 506