Bombay High Court
Krishnadeo Somaji Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 21 September, 2018
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
aba879.18
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 879 OF 2018
KRISHNADEO SOMAJI PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Rajendra S.
APP for Respondents: Mr. A.V. Deshmukh
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2018 PER COURT:-
1. The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No. 0064 of 2017 registered with Deoni Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A), 376(2)
(n), 323, 504, 506, 313, 201, 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(1), 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. His application with similar bearing Criminal M.A. No. 33 of 2018 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir by order dated 26.7.2018.
2. On the basis of complaint lodged by one Ram Kishan Rathod dated 07.04.2017 crime No. 64 of 2017 came to be registered at Deoni Police Station, against four accused persons for having aba879.18 -2- committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 368 (A) r.w.
34 of I.P.C. It has been alleged in the complaint that the informant Ram Kishan had been to Tamilnadu for doing the work of sugarcane cutting. The accused Suresh Govind Pawar and Arun Rathod, who happened to be the contractors also accompanied him. The informant had been to the State of Tamilnadu for cutting the sugarcane alongwith his wife, two daughters and two sons. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the said accused Suresh Pawar had developed relations with minor daughter of informant viz. Manisha and under the false promise of marrying with her, kidnapped her on 6.4.2017. The said accused Suresh is already married having two children. During the course of investigation of the aforesaid crime, it was also revealed that said accused Suresh has committed rape on victim and accordingly offences punishable under Section 376(2) (n) of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(1), 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 came to be added. During the course of investigation, when the victim was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has specifically alleged in her statement that the police Inspector of Deoni police station i.e. present applicant had caused miscarriage by giving tablets to her, without her consent. In consequence thereof on 22.11.2017, the present applicant came to be added as an accused aba879.18 -3- for having committed offences under Section 313 and 201 of I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is working as Police Inspector and he has unblemished service record of more than 20 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 15.5.2018 has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No.33 of 2018 and the said order was remained in force till the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir rejected the Criminal M.A. (bail) No. 33 of 2018 finally on 26.7.2018. Learned counsel submits that during this period from 15.5.2018 till 26.7.2018, the applicant has co-operated with the investigating agency and investigation is practically over almost in all sense and the formality of filing of charge sheet is only remained. The applicant came to be suspended following the departmental enquiry initiated against him and as such, there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Learned counsel submits that even in the given set of allegations, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all required. Learned counsel submits that allegations have been made that this applicant has given certain tablets to the victim and those tablets also came to be recovered during the course of investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. has strongly resisted the application on the aba879.18 -4- ground that the applicant, who is a responsible police officer, instead of protecting the victim of crime of rape, had given certain tablets to the victim for causing miscarriage without her consent. Learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant mislead the Sessions Court and obtained ad-interim anticipatory bail order in his favour. The investigation is still in progress. Learned A.P.P. submits that the regular investigation officer, who was investigating crime No. 64 of 2017, was on leave for two days and during the said period of two days when the charge of investigation of the aforesaid crime was taken by the present applicant formally, the applicant had given false promises to the complainant offering him employment in his agricultural field and had given those tablets to the victim for causing miscarriage. Even there is one independent witness on this point, who has supported the allegations made by the victim. Learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant, who is police officer, has in fact helped the accused persons in the crime and particularly accused Suresh Pawar against whom the victim has made allegations of rape. Learned A.P.P. submits that so as to find out the truth, custodial interrogation of the applicant is still required. The learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant should not be protected by granting anticipatory bail when his earlier application came to be withdrawn before this court and by misleading the Sessions Court he had obtained ad-interim anticipatory bail for certain period. Learned A.P.P. aba879.18 -5- submits that he has mislead the court below by making statement that there is change in the circumstance in the form of completion of departmental enquiry initiated against him.
5. Initially, the applicant had filed anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal M.A. No. 74 of 2017 before the Sessions Court at Udgir and the same came to be rejected on 21.12.2017. The applicant had thus approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail application No. 31 of 2018 and on 2.2.2018 the applicant withdrew the said application unconditionally without seeking any liberty from this Court to approach the Sessions Court. It further appears that the applicant thereafter has approached the Sessions Court by filing Criminal M.A. No. 33 of 2018 and the Sessions Judge, Latur, who was in charge of Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by order dated 15.5.2018 had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has recorded that the said successive application has been filed on the ground that in earlier anticipatory bail application the case was not properly put up before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge in para 4 of the order has also recorded a statement of the counsel appearing for the applicant that a departmental enquiry has been conducted against the applicant and report is submitted. Learned Sessions Judge has therefore, aba879.18 -6- considered it as change in circumstance and granted ad-interim anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has fairly admitted that no such report of the departmental enquiry has been submitted before the court below. Learned counsel submitted that in fact, factually incorrect statement has been recorded by the Sessions Judge. It is highly objectionable that even when the applicant has withdrawn his application filed for anticipatory bail before this Court unconditionally and even though this Court had not granted any liberty to approach the Sessions Court again, the application filed by the applicant was not only entertained by the learned Sessions Judge but also granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by accepting the statement of change in circumstance in the form of submission of report in departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant. In fact, no such ground of change in circumstance in the form of submission of report of the departmental enquiry initiated as against the applicant has been raised specifically in the application. However, in the oral statement this ground has been raised and the learned Sessions Judge has considered the same as change in circumstance. It further appears that the learned Sessions Judge has not even gone through the record to find out whether any such report of departmental enquiry has been submitted alongwith the bail aba879.18 -7- application.
7. Apart from this, there are serious allegations made against the present applicant. Though the applicant is responsible police officer, when the regular investigating officer who was assigned the investigation of crime No. 64 of 2017 went on leave, this applicant being in charge of the police station, himself has taken charge of the investigation of crime and given tablets to the victim for causing miscarriage. There are allegations that this applicant has given promise of employment to the father of victim. The father of victim i.e. the informant is a labour by occupation. It is not clear as to whether this applicant has done so in order to help the accused persons against whom crime has been registered under Section 376 of I.P.C. in respect of daughter of the informant. In the given set of allegations, custodial interrogation of the applicant is still required to find out the truth. Learned A.P.P. has pointed out from the investigation papers that the investigation is still to be completed on material points and the applicant is not at all co-operating with the investigating agency. Even an entry was taken in the station diary that during the period of ad-interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicant, he has not co-operated the investigating agency. In view of the same, I am not inclined to allow this application seeking anticipatory bail. Hence, application is hereby rejected.
aba879.18 -8-
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant requests for extension of protection for further period of two weeks so as to enable the applicant to approach the Supreme Court. Learned counsel submits that the applicant remained on ad-interim anticipatory bail from 15.5.2018 to 21.8.2018 i.e. till filing of the application. However, considering the allegations made against the present applicant, I am not inclined to consider his request. Request stands refused.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
Digitally signed
Rangnath by Rangnath
Laxmanrao
Laxmanrao Jadhav
Jadhav Date: 2018.09.24
17:43:03 +0530