Top
News Updates

No HC Relief For Lawyer Accused Of Outraging Woman’s Modesty [Read Judgment]

Live Law News Network
24 July 2017 4:29 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to a lawyer accused under Sections 448, 354, 380, 342, 427 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(g), (r), (s), (w), (ii), and (z) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in an FIR registered at Wanavari Police Station, Pune.

The division bench of Justice VK Tahilramani and Justice SK Shinde rejected the appeal filed by advocate Mahadev Titthal Jagadale.

Previously, Jagadale had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the sessions court. This application was rejected, thereafter a single bench of the high court also rejected Jagadale’s application. Another application was rejected by the sessions court on May 4, 2017.

According to the FIR, Jagadale abused the mother of the complainant in relation to her caste. He then put his hand on the chest of the mother of the complainant and pushed her into a corner and held her there.

Appellant’s counsel Abhijeet Desai argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which shows that the complainant has falsely implicated his client.

The court rejected the argument noting that the FIR was lodged on May 16, 2016, only a day after the alleged incident.

It was alleged that the said complaint was lodged as a reaction to a property dispute between the appellant and the complainant.

The court rejected this argument as well and noted: “Perusal of the FIR, clearly makes out an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. Hence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the appellant. The Appeal is dismissed.”

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story
Share it