Bombay High Court
Pravinkumar Mallappa Pujari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 March, 2019
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Sarang V. Kotwal
1 APEAL 1111-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2018
Pravinkumar Mallappa Pujari. ] ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra. ]
2. Anupama Ashok Kamble. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Viresh V. Purwant for Appellant.
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State - Respondent No.1.
Ms. Manisha Divekar a/w Mr. Shankar Katkar for Respondent No.2.
CORAM :- INDRAJIT MAHANTY &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- MARCH 07, 2019
PRONOUNCED ON :- MARCH 11, 2019
P. C. :-
1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section
14 of The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the 'Atrocities Act')
against the Order dated 09/08/2018 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Criminal Bail Application No.989 of 2018
whereby the application filed by the Appellant for anticipatory bail
URS 1 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
2 APEAL 1111-18.odt
was rejected. The Appellant is seeking his release on bail in the event
of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.320 of 2018 registered with
Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur for the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the IPC. The provisions of the Atrocities Act are
also applied against the Appellant.
2. The FIR was lodged by the first informant on 26/05/2018
under Section 376 of the IPC vide C.R.No.320 of 2018 at Faujdar
Chavadi Police Station, Solapur.
3. Brief allegations in the FIR are as follows :
When the first informant was studying in an engineering
college at Kegaon, Solapur in the year 2008, the Appellant got himself
acquainted with her. On 26/12/2010, both of them went to Tuljapur
and paid visit to the temple there. The Appellant gifted her a silver
anklet. After 3 to 4 months, the Appellant suggested that they should
have love affair. After a few months, he took her to a farmhouse at
Amchi, Karnataka. According to the first informant, she was forced to
go with him. There, he tried to develop physical intimacy but she
resisted. It is further alleged in the FIR that on the next occasion, he
URS 2 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
3 APEAL 1111-18.odt
told her that he had her photographs and threatened to upload those
on the internet. Thereafter, he took her to the same farmhouse and
this time they had sexual intercourse. The first informant has
mentioned in the FIR that at that time, the sexual intercourse took
place without her consent. The FIR further mentions that, on the next
occasion, the first informant was taken to Kudal Sangam at Karnataka
and again they had sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the first informant
started serving in Pune from 30/06/2015. The Appellant also started
residing in Pune. It is her case that the first informant herself used to
give him money whenever he needed it. The Appellant used to call
her to his room. It is her case that he used to threaten to commit
suicide and therefore, she used to go to his room. It is her case in the
FIR that the Appellant used to threaten her of uploading her
photographs on the internet. Between August-September, 2015, again
they had sexual intercourse and again the first informant has stated
that it was done without her consent. The FIR further mentions that,
thereafter they used to have sexual intercourse frequently and she
even got pregnant. On 07/10/2016, she underwent a procedure for
abortion. According to her, this too was done against her wish.
Thereafter, the first informant insisted that they get married. The
URS 3 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
4 APEAL 1111-18.odt
Appellant took her to his house in district Vijapur at Karnataka. The
FIR mentions that the Appellant's mother told her that she belonged to
a lower caste and not worthy of her son. The Appellant's mother
drove the Appellant and the first informant out of the house at 2.00
a.m. in the night. The FIR further mentions that the Appellant was to
get Rs.26 Lakhs from his family for going to New Zealand. Since he
was inclined to marry the first informant, the Appellant's family
refused to pay him and therefore, he started residing in Pune.
Thereafter, the Appellant got engaged with the first informant on
19/02/2017 at Indapur. The Appellant was serving in a multi-
national company and he went to Mysore for his training. It is stated
by the first informant that at that time, there was a quarrel between
them and therefore, the Appellant broke their relationship. Thereafter
when she tried to contact him, he told her that since she belonged to a
lower caste, he could not marry her. According to the first informant,
she was shocked and had to take treatment from a psychiatrist.
Thereafter, the Appellant came back from Mysore and came to her
house. He further informed her that by February 2018, he would
convince his mother and they could get married in March. However,
since then he did not get in touch with the first informant. On
URS 4 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
5 APEAL 1111-18.odt
14/03/2018, she herself called the Appellant and asked about
marriage. At that time, the Appellant informed her that he could not
marry her as his mother was opposed to the same. He further told her
not to contact him again. In the first week of April, the first informant
went to the flat of the Appellant and accused him of having love
relationship with one other girl. The first informant had verbal
exchanges with that girl. After that, the first informant and her father
went to the flat of the Appellant when they found that the other girl
was with the Appellant. It is further alleged that the Appellant and
that other girl assaulted the first informant about which the first
informant had lodged a police complaint at Hinjewadi Police Station,
Pune. Based on these allegations, the FIR vide C.R.No.320 of 2018
was registered at Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur.
4. The Appellant preferred Anticipatory Bail Application
No.989 of 2018. The order mentions that Sections 3(b)(t)(s)(6) of
the S.C.S.T. Act were applied. It appears that, perhaps Section 3(2)
(v) of that Act could have been mentioned in the context of the case.
The learned Judge, while rejecting the application, observed that the
allegation against the Appellant was that he had forcible sexual
URS 5 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
6 APEAL 1111-18.odt
intercourse with the first informant from time to time by giving
threats to her and that, detailed investigation was required. It was
also observed that custody was required to find out which tablet was
given to the first informant and that photographs were to be
recovered from his mobile phone.
5. We have heard Mr. Viresh V. Purwant learned Counsel for
the Appellant, Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for State -
Respondent No.1 and Ms. Manisha Divekar, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.2.
6. Ms. Manisha Divekar, learned Counsel for the first
informant as well as Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for
State, submitted that the offences under the Atrocities Act are made
out and therefore, the relief of anticipatory bail could not be granted
to the Appellant. They submitted that the physical intercourse had
taken place against her wish and there was no consent. There was
threat of publishing her photographs. On one occasion, the Appellant
had even mentioned that since the first informant belonged to a lower
caste, he was unable to marry her. Thus, according to the learned
URS 6 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
7 APEAL 1111-18.odt
Counsel for the first informant and the learned APP, and offence was
made out and therefore, the relief of anticipatory bail should not be
granted to the Appellant.
7. On the other hand, Mr. V. V. Purwant, learned Counsel for
the Appellant, submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not make
out any offence whatsoever, including that under Section 376 of the
IPC. Consequently, even the offences under the Atrocities Act are also
not made out. Both of them were having love affair and the
subsequent dispute which arose between them had led to filing of the
present FIR. The Appellant was innocent and thus was falsely
implicated. His future will be ruined if he is not granted the relief of
anticipatory bail.
8. It clearly appears that the Appellant and the first
informant were having love affair since about 2008 i.e. for more than
10 years. The first informant herself had accompanied the Appellant
when they first visited Karnataka, and thereafter when they had their
first sexual intercourse. The FIR mentions that even thereafter, they
regularly had sexual intercourse and on one occasion, she had even
URS 7 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
8 APEAL 1111-18.odt
got pregnant. She underwent procedure for abortion thereafter.
From the allegations in the FIR, it is clear that the Appellant made
serious efforts to convince his family members as he wanted to get
married with the first informant. The FIR mentions that on one
occasion when both of them had gone to the Appellant's house, both
of them were kept out of his house in the night. The Appellant had
even sacrificed his prospects of going to New Zealand for the sake of
the first informant. The Appellant even got engaged with the first
informant on 19/02/2017. All this background shows that the
Appellant and the first informant had love affair and the issue of
different castes never cropped up during that time. From the nature
of the allegations in the FIR, it appears that dispute arose between the
Appellant and the first informant because of the entry of another girl
who was found in the flat of the Appellant. Reading the FIR as a
whole, we are of the considered view that the Appellant and the first
informant had consensual sexual intercourse and they were having
such relationship over a long period of about 10 years. Therefore,
prima facie, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
376 of the IPC are not made out. Consequently, even the ingredients
of the alleged offences under the Atrocities Act are not made out.
URS 8 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
9 APEAL 1111-18.odt
Therefore, the bar to grant anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act
does not operate in this case. Therefore, we are inclined to grant the
relief of anticipatory bail to the present Appellant. It needs to be
noted that the findings recorded hereinabove are limited to the
consideration of this bail application only and the trial Court shall not
be influenced by the same while deciding the case of the Appellant on
merits and in accordance with law.
9. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 09/08/2018 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.989 of 2018, is set aside.
(iii) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.320 of 2018 registered with Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur, the Appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
URS 9 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::
10 APEAL 1111-18.odt
(iv) The Appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer
every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m., to 12.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and he shall cooperate with the investigation.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)
URS 10 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:11:08 :::