1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2247 /2009

(Gunwanta s/o Doma Barai vs. State of Maharashtra )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram

Court's or Judges Order

appearances, Court's orders of directions &

Registrar's orders.

..........................................................................................................................................................

Mr S G Karmarkar Adv.for applicant

Mr D.P. Thakare, APP for Respondent-State

C ORAM

: A.P. BHANGALE, J.

DATED

: 14

^th August, 2009.

By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of

Crime No. 75/2008 reported on 7^th December, 2008 at Narkhed Police

Station Dist. Nagpur, for offence punishable under sections 363, 366A of

the Indian Penal Code. Initially, at the instance of complaint by the father

of the victim, who is aged about 15 years, at the time of the incident. In

the FIR itself the name of the applicant figured that he had kidnapped Mala

daughter of first informant.

2.

Learned Advocate for the applicant made a reference to the rulings

in Sayed Mallomiyah Sayed vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 All

MR (Cri) 1 - ( B H Marlapalle, J.) and Ramkrishna Burkule v/s. State of

Maharashtra 1997 (3) Crimes 364 ( Datar, J.), in order to submit that

notwithstanding serious accusations of kidnapping and rape, the applicant

may be enlarged on bail. I have perused the ruling in Sayed’s case (supra).

It appears that prima facie it did not reflect that the victim was not a

consenting party. Under the circumstances, the application was allowed.

In Ramkrishna’s case ( supra), the victim was aged about 13 years and the

accused had taken her to various places and had sexual intercourse with

her. It was not disputed that the applicant was insisting her to marry

with him and had threatened to commit suicide if she declined. Under

these circumstances, although bail application was rejected by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge, on the basis of statement made that the applicant

that he will stay at a native place, it was considered as a fit case to

2

grant bail, of course, on certain conditions.

3.

In my opinion, both the rulings cited above, would not be of any

help to the applicant in the present case, for the simple reason that the

accusations are extremely serious. Although initially offence was reported

under sec. 363 and 366(A), on the basis of investigation more serious

accusations for offence punishable u/ss. 376, 420, 469, 506 IPC along

with section 3 (1)(xii) & 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 ( in short the “Atrocities Act”)

were also applied. The statement of the victim in the case alleged that

the applicant/ accused had enticed her on the pretext that she will

accompany her to Nagpur and they will return back after witnessing

Navratra Utsav; when she refused to accompany with him, he used

force, took her to Railway station under a threat that the victim will be

thrown at Railway track and would be killed and the applicant would

himself commit suicide. Due to duress and fear, the victim had

accompanied with him to Narkhed Railway station and thereafter Nagpur

and Ramtek etc. Thus, she was taken to Ramtek, Pandhurna, Bhopal

and it is alleged that he had forcibly committed rape upon her. In the

course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded

indicating as to how the applicant had taken victim to various places.

Medical certificate collected during the course also indicated that the

applicant is a minor girl aged about 15 years. The medic