SUBHASH SAVLARAM GUNJAL 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 the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Special Case No. 216 of 2020, thereby rejecting the application of the appellant for releasing him on bail, this appeal is preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was arrested on 20.09.2020 and since then he is in jail and there is no possibility of commencing trial in near future. The chargesheet is already filed and, therefore, there is no need to detain appellant in jail. The medical report of the victim would clearly reveal that there are no injuries on her body and hymen and also there was no bleeding, no tear, no edema on the part of body of the victim and, therefore, the medical evidence completely demolishes the prosecution case. The alleged incident occurred on 16.08.2019, however, the FIR has been registered on 17.08.2019. If the appellant is released on bail he will be in a better position to contest the trial. The appellant, if released, would abide by all the conditions as imposed upon him. The entire prosecution story of alleged act by the appellant is false and just to rope in the appellant the said FIR is registered.