HC rejects bail plea of man accused of raping boy

Nagpur: Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court rejected bail plea of 58-year-old tailor who had allegedly forced a 15-year-old boy into anal sex and was charged under Section 377 of IPC and Pocso Act. HC observed if the accused was released on bail, there was possibility of increasing the trauma of survivor leading to adversely affecting his ability to depose as witness.
“Having considered all the circumstances together, we are of the opinion there is a prima facie case made out against the accused. It also appears the survivor felt very much threatened with continued activities of petitioner. He was required to narrate his woes to his mother in order to get out of his troubles. These circumstances indicate that the minor boy has been put under stress and is very much traumatized due to serious acts committed by the accused,” a division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor said.
Before dismissing appeal of accused Satish Badnakhe, hailing from Dharni in Amravati, the bench added the allegations made against him were very serious. “There is nothing on record which would prima facie show the minor had some axe to grind against the petitioner. The survivor was allegedly coerced into continuing with unnatural relationship between two males in which the accused was receiver and boy was active partner.”
Pleading for prosecution assistant government pleader Kalyani Deshpande contended the accused had induced the minor into physical relationship against the nature. He appears to be a homosexual who likes to act as a passive partner in the relationship, she said.
According to her, the accused had indulged into this activity in October last year. When the boy was tired of his daily demand, he decided to reveal the issue to his mother. Subsequently, a police complaint was lodged against the petitioner in November by the boy and accused was arrested.
Badnakhe then challenged the FIR and also sought bail from the HC through his counsel SD Chopde contending that the allegations were false. The judges observed that the medical reports of accused and minor show no injuries on their private parts and no communicable diseases.
“In accused’s medical report, it has been particularly stated no injuries were found on his private parts. There could be several reasons for it. At this stage, no conclusion can be drawn that because the injuries were absent no intercourse had taken place,” the judges said.
What HC said:
* There is a prima facie case made out against the accused
* Survivor felt threatened with continued activities of accused
* He was put under stress and traumatized due to accused’s acts
* He was required to narrate woes to mother to get out of trouble
* If released on bail, there’s a possibility of boy’s trauma increasing
* It may lead to adversely affecting his ability to depose as witness