The State Of Maharashtra v. Rahul Maruti Sanap
914 APPPLN 90 .doc vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2015 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant V/s.
Rahul Maruti Sanap .... Respondent Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Applicant.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 28th JULY, 2016.
P.C. :
1.
By this application, the State is challenging the order dated 13.10.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, granting anticipatory bail to respondent/accused in Crime No.422 of 2014, registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.
Heard the learned APP, who argued that the impugned order granting pre-arrest bail is perverse and irrelevant material was considered while granting anticipatory bail.
3.
Perused the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order. Informant Ruchita (since deceased), was taking education in Physiotherapy course at Pune. It is seen that Ruchita had developed love relations with 1/2
914 APPPLN 90 .doc respondent accused. According to the informant father when Ruchita visited her parental house at Beed, she informed him that the respondent had assaulted her on left ear. Thereafter Ruchita went back to Pune for prosecuting her further studies.
4.
In the night intervening 4.9.2014 and 5.9.2014, Ruchita committed suicide. It is averred that the respondent/accused has abetted her in commission of suicide.
5.
Perused the impugned order granting pre-arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has thoroughly examined evidence collected by the prosecution and discussed the same in proper perspective. Similarly it was also considered that respondent is a student taking education. Prima facie ingredients of offence of abetment were found to be missing. The impugned order is well reasoned and considering the relevant material. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence the following order. Order Application is rejected.
[A. M. BADAR, J.] 2/2