AMIT SADANAND SHELAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties. This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SCST Act") is filed by the appellant (original accused) challenging the order dated 31st December, 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Thane, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3199 of 2018, thereby, rejecting his claim for anticipatory bail in Crime No. I222/2018 for offences under Section 376(2)(c)(J)(n), 328, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and amended Rule 3(12) of the SCST Act (sic) registered with Police Station CBD, Navi Mumbai.

(2.) During the course of hearing of this appeal, upon being questioned by this Court the Investigating Officer who happens to be the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Turbhe Division, Navi Mumbai, communicated to the Court through the learned APP that upon re examination of the matter, the amended provisions of the SCST Act are added to the case diary of the crime in question. Now, according to the prosecution, the offences alleged against the appellant are under Section 376(2)(c)(j)(n), 328, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(12) of the SCST Act.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the FIR unerringly points out that whatever was happening between the appellant and the first informant was with consent and this fact is reflected from the text messages exchanged between the parties. He placed on record transcripts of the recorded conversation between the appellant and the first informant. It is argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly after about 18 months and that too when the husband of the first informant suspected something foul.