Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hitesh Santosh Vartak, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the rejection of his bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag-Raigad. The case arose from an FIR registered at Pen Police Station, Raigad, under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The prosecution alleged that on 18.06.2022, when the victim was alone at home, the appellant and his friend entered, the appellant held her hand, followed her into the bathroom, tied her hands with a handkerchief, and raped her. The victim's elder sister, Dipti Yadav, arrived, pushed open the bathroom door, and saw them together; the appellant apologized and fled. The victim reported the incident, leading to the appellant's arrest. The investigation was completed, and a chargesheet was filed on 12.08.2022. The appellant sought bail, which was denied by the trial court. The High Court noted that the victim and appellant were in a relationship for 2-3 years, as evidenced by WhatsApp chats and call records. The victim did not raise an alarm during the incident, and the bathroom door was open. The court observed that the victim's conduct, including the delay in filing the FIR and the consensual nature of the relationship, did not support the allegations of rape. Additionally, there was no evidence that the offence was committed on account of the victim's caste, thus the provisions of the Atrocities Act were not attracted. The court held that no prima facie case was made out against the appellant and granted bail on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether a prima facie case exists for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act - Held that the victim's conduct of not raising alarm, delay in FIR, and consensual relationship indicate no prima facie case, thus bail granted (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Consensual Relationship - The victim and appellant were in a relationship for 2-3 years, exchanged messages, and the incident occurred in a bathroom with open door - Held that the act appears consensual, not rape (Para 5). C) Criminal Law - Atrocities Act - Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) - Caste-Based Offence - No evidence that the offence was committed on account of the victim being a member of SC/ST - Held that the ingredients of the Atrocities Act are not attracted (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, given the allegations of rape and atrocities.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 29.08.2022 is set aside. Appellant is directed to be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties. Conditions: (a) not to tamper with prosecution witnesses; (b) not to contact the victim; (c) attend trial regularly; (d) furnish mobile number and address to IO; (e) not to leave India without court permission.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 14A of SC/ST Act
- Prima facie case
- Consensual relationship
- Delay in FIR
- False implication
