YERGUNTHA SUDARSHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel at some length, Shri Sabnis for the applicant and Shri Mirajkar for respondent-State.

(2.) THIS is an application for bail by a Police Inspector who has been charged with the offence of custodial rape punishable under section 376 (2) (a) of the I. P. C. read with section 376-B of the I. P. C. The applicant was the Senior Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Branch, Bombay and a raid was conducted in the evening of 21st August 1992 at Citadel Hotel, Khar, Bombay in connection with C. R. 263 of 1992 from where certain call girls including Reshma, the prosecutrix in this case, were brought to the vigilance branch, H. Q. late in the evening. It is alleged that Reshma was interrogated by the applicant alone in the privacy of his room where he later committed rape on her, during the mid-night between 21st and 22nd ugust, 1992.

(3.) IT is true that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant by its order dated 20th November 1992 in Criminal Application No. 3460 of 1992. This Court had, then prima facie come to the conclusion that the story of the girl was not believable and that her statement was recorded much later. A doubt was expressed about the absence of the statement of Asst. Commissioner of Police (A. C. P.) Padvi and in the circumstances anticipatory bail was granted in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. The State moved the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 3182 of 1992 on 7th December 1992. Two affidavits were filed before the Supreme Court to point out the conduct of the applicant. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court by its order dated 12th February 1993 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Supreme Court observed that this was not a fit case for the exercise of powers of grant of anticipatory bail but since the applicants Counsel before the Supreme Court volunteered that the applicant would surrender forthwith, the Supreme Court refrained from assigning any reasons for cancellation of the bail. This has been so stated in the order of the Supreme Court itself. While permitting the State to file the charge-sheet and giving liberty to the applicant to move the learned Session Judge, the Supreme Court directed that the trial Court should ignore the observations made by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail on 20th November 1992.