SAGAR TANAJI GAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it is required to be noted that since the allegations leveled by the 2nd respondent against the appellant are in respect of the alleged sexual assault, the identity of the appellant and 2nd respondent needs to be concealed, therefore, the appellant is referred to as "ABC " and 2nd respondent is referred to as "XYZ ". The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly.

(2.) Being aggrieved by an order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Court at Shivaji Nagar, Pune, thereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 09.07.2020, however, the FIR has been belatedly registered on 13.08.2020. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent was given in the custody of parents, thereafter the FIR came to be registered. There are no independent witness to support the prosecution case as it is evident from the perusal of the chargesheet and its accompaniments. That there is no evidence to support the claim of the 2nd respondent that there was forceful sexual intercourse. There are no external physical injuries on the person of the 2nd respondent. Doctor has observed 'multiple old healed hymnal tear '. The 2nd respondent has not stated anything in the FIR that the appellant abused her on cast. At the most alleged offence against the appellant is under Section 354-A of the IPC, which is a bailable section. The chargesheet is already filed and no purpose will be served by continuing the stay of the appellant in the jail. Learned counsel further submits that since arrest, the appellant is in jail and the trial is not likely to be commenced in the near future, therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.