1
BA No.121/2024
MHCC020008332024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.121 OF 2024
Pratik Wadkar
Aged 25 years, Occ. : Business,
R/at. Indore, Near Gate
Udiyapulav, Nankhed, Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh.
..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Santacruz
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R. No.1201/2023).
..Respondent
Appearance :
Advocate Mr. Madan Gupta for the applicant.
APP Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar for the respondent/State.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 02/02/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.
Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No. 1201/2023 for
the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420 of Indian Penal Code has
filed this application for bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure. Prosecution filed say at Exh.2 and opposed the application.
2
2.
BA No.121/2024
I have heard learned Advocate Shri. Madan Gupta for applicant
and Learned APP Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar for prosecution.
3.
As per allegations in FIR, the applicant/accused is having love
affair with informant. He met to informant on 18.06.2023 and under false
promise of marriage committed sexual relations with the informant.
Thereafter, again in the month of August 2023, he called informant at
Lonawala. They stayed in one hotel for three days and during the said
period he again maintained sexual relations with the informant under
promise of marriage. After one month, when informant made phone call to
him and asked about marriage, he avoided the informant and thereafter,
refused to marry with informant.
4.
Learned advocate for applicant submitted that age of victim is
28 years. As per FIR, there was love affair between informant and
applicant. Thus, the sexual relations between both of them are consensual
relations. Applicant and informant are relatives. Applicant had not given
false promise of marriage, there is immediate relevance of marriage with
the sexual relations. Hence, it cannot be a case of false promise of marriage
to construe offence under Sec.376 of IPC. Applicant is behind bar since
13.01.2024. He is ready to abide any condition and to cooperate in
remaining investigation. Hence, learned advocate prayed to allow the
application. Learned advocate relied on following rulings
“ 1.
Uday Vs. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal
No.336/1996 dated 19.02.2003 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
2.
Shambhu Kharwar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No.1231/2022 dated 12.08.2022 in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
3
3.
BA No.121/2024
Manesh Madusudan Kottiyan Vs. The State of Maharashtra in
Criminal Appeal No.892/2012 dated 02.07.2023 in the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court.
4.
Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. The State of Maharashtra dated
09.01.2017 in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.”
5.
Learned APP submitted that as per allegations in FIR, there is
clear inducement of informant on the pretext of marriage to maintain the
sexual relations by the applicant. After second incident in August 2023,
applicant refused to marry. Statement of victim under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.
and statements of other witnesses are yet to be recorded. If released on
bail, applicant may tamper the evidence. Hence, learned APP prayed to
reject the application.
6.
I have considered submissions and perused the FIR. It appears
from FIR that there was love affair between applicant and informant since
January 2023.
Applicant is relative of informant. Contents of FIR also
shows that, after the friendship converted into love affair, both of them
decided to marry and thereafter, there was first incident of sexual relation
taken place between them on 18.06.2023. FIR further shows that informant
voluntarily went at Lonawala and stayed with applicant in the hotel for
three days and they had sexual relations. These facts show that, informant
voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences, maintained
relations with the applicant. In the ruling in Mahesh Dandane (Cited
Supra) Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that “ However, every breach
of promise to marry cannot be said to be either a cheating or rape. A couple
in love with each other may be having sexual relationship and realize that
they are not compatible and sometimes love between the parties is lost and
4
BA No.121/2024
their relationship dries gradually, then earlier physical contacts cannot be said
as rape. A marriage cannot be imposed, as a search of life partner depends
not only on physical compatibility but also on emotional, psychological
bonding. It is a matter of choice related to individual’s notions of suitability,
emotional, psychological comfort and biological requirement. Thus, while
granting anticipatory bail, all these factors are required to be considered. ”
7.
It appears from the FIR that, applicant had not forced
informant to give sexual relations and she was not induced to such an
extent that she had no other option, but to keep physical relationship with
the applicant. On the contrary, her act to go at Lonawala and stay in hotel
for three days shows that the relations are consensual.
8.
Applicant behind bar since 13.01.2024. Conditions can be
imposed to avoid threats or promise to informant from tampering the
evidence and to give attendance at police station to cooperate in remaining
investigation. For these reasons, I hold that applicant is entitled for bail.
Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
1. Bail Application No.121 of 2024 in CR No. 1201/2023 is allowed.
2. Applicant Pratik Wadkar be released on bail by executing P.R. bond of
Rs.30,000/ and one or two sureties of like amount.
3. Applicant shall not contact, give threats or induce to informant and
other witnesses in any manner and not to tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution.
5
BA No.121/2024
4. Applicant shall attend concerned police station on every 1 st and 3rd
Monday of each month till conclusion of trial of this offence and to give his
proof of residential address and contact number to investigation officer and
update the same time to time.
5. Bail Application No.121 of 2024 in CR No. 1201/2023 stands disposed
off accordingly.
Date : 02/02/2024
(N.G. Shukla)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
6
BA No.121/2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer
Upload date and time
Name of the Judge
: Mrs. Shravanti Karre
: 06th February, 2024 (At 12.35 pm.)
H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 02nd February, 2024
Order signed by P.O. on
05th February, 2024
Order uploaded on
06th February, 2024