1
BA No.654/2024
MHCC020041942024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2024
Satish Sagar Yadav
Aged about 33 years,
R/at. : Flat No.902, New Kalaniketan
Apartment, S.V. Road, Khar,
Mumbai – 400 052.
Presently at, Arthur Road Central Prison.

..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Khar
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R. No.177/2024).

..Respondent
Appearance :Advocate Mr. Shasheen Khan for the applicant.
APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for the respondent/State.
Adv. Prashant Gurav for intervener/complainant.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 22/03/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.

Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No.177/2024 for
the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N) of Indian Penal Code has
filed this application for bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
2
BA No.654/2024
Procedure. Prosecution filed reply at Exh.2 and Advocate for complainant
filed reply at Exh.5 and opposed the application for bail.

2.

I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Shasheen Khan for
applicant, Learned APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for prosecution and Adv. Prashant
Gurav for intervener.

3.

It is alleged that, informant met to accused in April 2019. At
that time, due to matrimonial dispute with husband, informant was
intending to obtain divorce from her husband. In November/December
2019, due to dispute with husband, informant left his house and stayed
with accused in one hotel. It is alleged that at that time under pretext of
false promise of marriage, accused committed rape on the informant.
Thereafter, informant received divorce from her husband by decree of
Family Court.

Thereafter, accused had not obeyed his promise on the
ground of depression and mental illness and cheated the informant.
Hence, the informant lodged report.
4.

Learned advocate for accused submitted that, informant is 10
years old who is having age 42 years than the accused who is 33 years of
age. There is friendship and love affair between informant and accused.
They were in relationship for four years i.e. since 2019 and informant
lodged report on 22.02.2024. At the time of first physical relationship,
informant was not divorced from her husband. She was knowing said fact.
Hence, there is no question of misconception of fact and no question of
giving false promise of marriage. Informant and accused had attended joint
session before Psychiatric as accused was under depression. In such
circumstances, offence under Sec.376 of IPC would not attract. Thus,
3
BA No.654/2024
accused is entitled for bail on conditions. Hence, learned advocate prayed
to allow the application. She relied on following rulings “Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal
No.257/2023 passed by Supreme Court of India on 30.01.2023.”
5.

Learned APP submitted that, accused had committed rape
frequently on the informant by giving promise of marriage.

After the
informant got divorced from husband, accused had not completed the
promise. Thereby, he committed offence of rape. Investigation is in
progress. Statement of accused under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. is yet to be
recorded. If released on bail, accused may give threats or pressurize the
victim and tamper the evidence. Hence, learned APP prayed to reject the
application.
6.

Learned Advocate Prashant Gurav for informant argued that
the initial relations on consent is not denied by the informant.
incident of physical relation was consensual.

First
After divorce received to
informant, accused maintained physical relations, but not completed the
promise of marriage. He had refused to complete the promise for the
reason of depression. Advocate for accused issued notice on 11.09.2023
thereby quoting the reason of depression. Informant has given reply to the
notice. Accused has committed serious offence. Investigation is in progress.
Accused may give threats to the informant, if released on bail. Hence, he
prayed to reject the application.
7.

I have considered submissions and perused the record. It
appears from FIR that when the informant came in contact with accused,
her marital tie with husband was alive and no divorce was taken place. The
first physical relations between informant and accused on the ground of
4
BA No.654/2024
alleged promise of marriage was taken place in November/December 2019.
At that time, informant had not received divorce. It is settled law that to
ascertain consent for physical relations under the false promise of marriage,
the accused must have intention to not fulfill the promise of marriage since
inception. In the instant case, inspite having knowledge to the informant
that she was not having got divorced, she consented for physical relations.
Thus, there is no question of giving false promise of marriage upon which
she consented for physical relations. It appears that there was consensual
relations since beginning between informant and accused.
6.
08.07.2022.

It appears from record that informant received divorce on
It is alleged that till December 2022, accused maintained
physical relations with the informant after divorce. However, there is no
misconception of fact because as per the allegation, accused was giving
promise of marriage since prior to divorce of informant and she being lady
of 42 years of age, consented for physical relations having knowledge of
consequences. There is no direct nexus between promise of marriage and
the act of physical relations. It is not case that because of promise of
marriage, she immediately given consent for physical relations. The consent
for physical relations was since prior to obtaining divorce. It also appears
that in the year 2022, accused was under depression and he taken
treatment of Psychiatric for said illness. That is the reason for the accused
to not complete the promise. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that
accused had intention since inception to not fulfill the marriage. Thus,
attracting the provisions of Sec.376 of IPC itself become doubtful.
7.

Accused is arrested on 23.02.2024. Police papers shows that
almost investigation is completed. Say of police does not discloses that
statement of informant under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded. Apart
5
BA No.654/2024
from this, condition can be imposed on accused to prevent threats to the
informant. For these reasons, I hold that accused is entitled for bail.
Hence, I pass following order :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.654 of 2024 in CR No. 177/2024 is allowed.
2. Applicant Satish Sagar Yadav 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.
4. Applicant shall attend concerned police station on every 2 nd and 4th
Saturday 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. Breach of any of the aforesaid condition will be ground for cancellation
of bail.
6. Bail Application No. 654 of 2024 in CR No. 177/2024 stands disposed
off accordingly.

Date : 22/03/2024
(N.G. Shukla)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
6
BA No.654/2024
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
: 22nd March, 2024 (At 05.56 pm.)

H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 22nd March, 2024
Order signed by P.O. on
22nd March, 2024
Order uploaded on
22nd March, 2024