Pankaj @ Mandar Gangaram Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 909-ABA No.1920-19.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1920 OF 2018 Pankaj @ Mandar Gangaram Jadhav ] ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. P.B. Shewale, PHC 648 attached to Satara City Police Station, District Satara present.

CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE :- 30 th AUGUST, 2019.

P. C. :- 1.

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.461/2019 registered with Satara City Police Station, District Satara u/sec. 354, 504, 506 of I.P.C.

2.

The FIR is lodged on 05/07/2019 by the victim herself. She has stated that, her daughter Priya was married to one Sanjay Chavan and had gone to reside at Ganesh Chowk, Kodoli. The applicant was known to the informant and her daughter. On 05/07/2019 at about 8.00 p.m., while the informant was walking on the street towards

2 909-ABA No.1920-19.doc Samrat Dhaba, the applicant approached her on a Scooty. He uttered some objectionable words in respect of her daughter and herself. Thereafter, he inappropriately touched her and outraged her modesty. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

3.

Heard Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Prashant Jadhav, Ld. APP for the State/Respondent. 4.

Mr. Gaikwad submitted that, the applicant had already sold his Scooty before the incident. He further submitted that, the applicant is falsely implicated because of informant's opposition to friendship between him and her daughter. He submitted that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary because the facts are made clear in the FIR itself.

5.

Ld. APP opposed these submissions and added that, the offence is serious and on that ground, anticipatory bail should not be granted. 6.

I have considered these submissions. The manner in which the informant was treated by the applicant is clearly reflected in the FIR.

3 909-ABA No.1920-19.doc The submission that, the applicant sold his Scooty prior to the incident does not have any force because, the applicant could have easily got another vehicle. The FIR also shows that, the informant's daughter was already married and yet the applicant was harassing her. Therefore, the applicant deserves no sympathy and no protection of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)