Bombay HC Rejects Bail To Convict Who Raped A Minor having two boyfriends

A woman may be having  easy virtue  but that does not
mean that all and sundry  can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no.  Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her.   She
had not attained consenting age.   Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1110 OF 2017
IN 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2017

Shrikantsingh Sukhdev Singh V The State of Maharashtra. 

CORAM: A.M.BADAR,J
DATED: 21st September, 2017
Citation: 2017SCCONLINE BOM 8878


1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
releasing the applicant/accused on bail  during the pendency
of   the   appeal   filed   by   him.   After   the   Trial   the
applicant/accused   is   convicted   of   the   offence   punishable
under section 5(n) r/w  6 of the Protection  of the Children
from Sexual Offences Act  as well as under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code.  He has been sentenced to suffer  rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years apart from directions to pay fine of
Rs.2500/­.
2. Heard   the   learned   Advocate   appearing   for   the
applicant/accused at sufficient length of time by taking me
through the order passed by this court in Criminal Application
No.1132 of 2016. The learned Advocate submitted that during
the pendency of  the trial  the applicant/accused  was on bail
and   he  has  not   misused   the   opportunity.     He   has  further
argued that   there is delay in lodging the First Information
Report and when the alleged victim of the crime in question
was taken to shelter home she has not disclosed the incident
of rape on her.  She was having two boy friends, with whom
she   had   sexual   relations.   Therefore,   in   submission   of   the
learned advocate for the applicant/accused, as there is no
earning member at the house of the applicant,  he needs to be
released on bail. The learned APP opposed the application.  

3. I have carefully considered the submission   advanced
and also perused copies of deposition as well as impugned
judgment and order.  Particularly material brought on record
from the cross examination of the victim, it is seen that she
was a female child at the time of the incident  in  question.
Her mother had deserted her father and therefore, she was
required to be at the mercy of her aunt.   The applicant is
husband of the  aunt of the victim a minor female child.  She
has   categorically   stated   that   the   applicant   had   committed
penetrative sexual assault  with her repeatedly.
4.   A woman may be having  easy virtue  but that does not
mean that all and sundry  can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no.  Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her.   She
had not attained consenting age.   Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.

5. The   offence   alleged   is   serious.   After   due   trial   the
applicant/accused is held guilty of the offence. Hence, no case
for grant of bail is made out. Hence the application is rejected.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.
    ( A.M. BADAR, J.)

Print Page