Gujarat High Court
Sunilbhai vs State on 21 January, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14672/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14672 of 2009
=========================================================
SUNILBHAI
RAMSANGBHAI @ KALUBHAI JADAV KARADIA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VIRAL K SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 21/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail by the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.No.I-117 of 2009 with Kodinar police station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned advocate Mr.V.K. Shah for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the commission of offence. The learned advocate placed reliance on the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application and subsequent statement given by the victim dated 02.09.2009 and submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. The learned advocate submitted that the applicant has not played any overt act in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned A.P.P. Ms.Krina Calla, representing the respondent-State, while opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the role played by the applicant which is reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application, it becomes clear that the applicant has committed rape on young girl of 16 years of age. The learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the school leaving certificate wherein, date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 09.11.1993 and the alleged offence has taken place on 28.08.2009. Thus, considering the aforesaid aspect and provisions of Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the application does not call for interference and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.V.K. Shah for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Ms.Krina Calla for the respondent-State at length and in great detail. I have considered the role attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application. The applicant is facing serious charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. I have considered the affidavit on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned A.P.P. and the statement filed by the victim on 02.09.2009 as well as the school leaving certificate produced at page 20 of the compilation. Considering the same, it becomes clear that the birth date of the victim, as mentioned therein, is 09.11.1993. The incident in question took place on 28.08.2009 which can be seen from the complaint given by Kanabhai Sidibhai Dodia. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it becomes clear that, on the date of incident, age of the victim was below 16 years. Thus, considering the 6th exception of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, if the age of the victim is below 16 years then irrespective of her consent, if the accused has induced her and committed rape, he would not be entitled to claim discretionary relief of bail. Thus, considering the aforesaid aspect, the applicant, in my view, is not entitled to the relief, as prayed for in the application and as the application is devoid of merit, it is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI, J.) Hitesh Top