Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. Section 354-D(1) reads as follows:354-D: Stalking(1) Anymanwho-(i)
  • Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2.
  • Section 354(D) of the IPC
  • Section 439 of Cr.P.C
  • Section 354-D
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. Section 354-D(1) reads as follows:354-D: Stalking(1) Anymanwho-(i)
  • Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2.
  • Section 354(D) of the IPC
  • Section 439 of Cr.P.C
  • Section 354-D
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was arrested on 20.6.2016 in connection with Crime No. 185 of 2016 registered at Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur. The charge-sheet was filed on 18.6.2016 for offences under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution case is based on the report lodged by Rajaram Bodekar, the uncle of the deceased Pallavi, who committed suicide on 19.6.2016. Pallavi had informed her uncle that the applicant and his friends were stalking her and pressuring her to marry the applicant. A suicide note (chit) found at the scene stated that Pallavi felt harassed and helpless, which led to her taking her own life. Investigation papers, including the suicide note and statements, were perused by the Court. The charge-sheet does not include a charge under Section 354-D of the IPC, which pertains to stalking, despite evidence indicating such conduct by the applicant.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the charge-sheet should include an offence under Section 354-D of the IPC for stalking, in addition to the charges already framed.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) given the circumstances of the case and the completed investigation.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

  • The prosecution submits that the suicide note evidences harassment and stalking by the applicant and his friends.
  • The charge-sheet lacks a count under Section 354-D IPC despite the incriminating material.
  • The victim and the first informant belong to an economically backward class and could not take direct action against the applicant due to fear and intimidation.
  • The first informant did not approach the police earlier due to apprehension of danger.
  • However, the prosecution contends that the applicant did not instigate, abet, or facilitate the suicide.
  • Investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed, supporting bail consideration.

Applicant's Arguments

  • This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the investigation papers and suicide note, noting that the applicant was involved in stalking the victim. It observed that although the charge-sheet did not include Section 354-D IPC, the facts warranted framing charges under this provision due to the serious threat stalking poses to women's dignity and safety. The Court recognized the socio-economic vulnerability of the victim and the intimidation faced by the first informant, which delayed police action. While the applicant was not found to have instigated or abetted the suicide, the Court found sufficient material for conviction under Section 354-D. Given that the investigation was complete and the applicant had been in custody for almost six months, the Court deemed bail appropriate under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail application and should not influence any quashing or discharge proceedings.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount. The applicant must report to Karveer Police Station on the first Sunday of each month until the conclusion of the trial and is prohibited from entering the jurisdiction of Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur during this period.

Implications: The decision directly affects the applicant by granting bail and imposing reporting and territorial restrictions pending trial. The Court did not set any new legal precedent but emphasized the significance of including stalking charges under Section 354-D IPC where warranted. The observations are confined to the bail context and do not affect future proceedings on quashing or discharge.

    Deu Baju Bodake v. State Of Maharashtra

    Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.:— This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C The applicant herein is arrested on 20.6.2016 in Crime No. 185 of 2016 registered at Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed against the present applicant on 18.6.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

    2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.6.2016, Rajaram Bodekar lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that Pallavi was his niece. Pallavi and Nikita were residing just next to the house of the first informant. Pallavi used to work as a housemaid in the area of Tarabai Park. Her sister Nikita was studying in college. It is the case of the first informant that in the week preceding 20.6.2016, Pallavi had informed him that whenever she is going for work, she is being stalked by the present applicant and his friends and that the present applicant insist upon her to get married to him. At times, his friends follow her and insist upon her to get married to the present applicant. On 19.6.2016, Pallavi had committed suicide in her house by hanging herself to the rafter in her house. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 185 of 2016 was registered at the police station.

    3. Perused the papers of investigation.

    4. It appears that initially a report was given to the police station about the suicidal death of Pallavi on 19th itself. The entry was taken on the Station Diary at Sr. No. 27 at about 8.57 p.m Spot panchnama was conducted on 19.6.2016 from 8.10 p.m to 9.05 p.m in Station Diary Entry No. 72 of 2016. It appears that in the spot panchnama, the investigating agency had found a chit which was scribed by deceased Pallavi. She had stated in the said chit that “she was being harassed by the present applicant and his friends, thereby insisting upon to get married to the present applicant. She has no parents. She felt helpless and therefore, she was committing suicide.

    5. It is pertinent to note that although it is stated in the panchnama that the chit was seized. The chit does not form a part of the charge-sheet. The investigating officer is present in the Court and on instructions, the learned APP submits that the chit has been sent for the handwriting expert's opinion and, therefore, it does not find place in the charge-sheet. Needless to say that the scene of offence panchnama is preceding registration of offence. Accidental death was not registered and it appears that only after the chit was found on the next day, the first information report was lodged. It is stated in the first information report that Pallavi had disclosed to her uncle about the harassment at the hands of the present applicant and his friends. Upon instructions, the learned APP submits that no non-cognizable case was registered at any police station against the present applicant or his friends. Upon a query made to the learned APP as to why scene of offence panchnama does not mention either A.D number or any other entry. It is stated that there is station diary entry. Since there was law and order situation, no A.D could be registered.

    6. This Court has perused the compilation of the investigation papers and has seen the suicide note. It is true that the papers of investigation would reveal that the applicant was indulging into stalking the victim Pallavi. The charge-sheet is not filed under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. Section 354-D(1) reads as follows:—

    “354-D: Stalking

    “(1) Anymanwho-

    (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

    (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication commits the offence of stalking;

    7. The punishment prescribed in Section 354-D is for a term which may extend to 3 years and fine. Section 354-D is a cognizable and bailable offence. It is unfortunate that the girl had committed suicide only because she did not have parents. She had disclosed the fact to her uncle. However, he had not taken any action against the present applicant or his friends.

    8. On the basis of the suicide note and the statements of the witnesses, this is a fit case where the charge needs to be framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC also. There is more than sufficient incriminating material which would warrant conviction under Section 354(D) of the IPC. There is an alarming threat to the dignity and modesty of women. Their life is made miserable by anti-social elements like the present applicant. Vulnerable girls, like the victim in the present case, choose to end their life for want of support. The legislature has therefore righdy incorporated the act of stalking under Section 354(D) of the IPC. Unfortunately in the present case charge-sheet is not filed under Section 354(D) of the IPC.

    9. The learned APP submits that since the victim and the first informant belong to the economically backward class, they could not take any action against the present applicant who had created a terror in the said area. The first informant had apprehended danger at the hands of the present applicant and, therefore, he had not approached the police station. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the applicant had instigated, abetted or facilitated the commission of suicide. In view of this, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail since he is in custody for the last almost six months. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.

    10. The above observations are restricted to an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of quashing of FIR or discharge application.

    (i) The application is allowed.

    (ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

    (iii) The applicant shall report to Karveer Police Station on first Sunday of each month till conclusion of the trial.

    (iv) The applicant shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur, till conclusion of the trial.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Deu Baju Bodake v. State Of Maharashtra
    (Nov 30, 2016)