1
Cri. Bail Application No. 1610/ 2020
Devidas Pandit Bosare
..
Applicant/
Accused.
..
Respondent.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
through P.I. Peth P.Stn.
(Cr. No. I 47/2020)
Order below Exh.1
1.
This is the third application has been filed by the
applicant/accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on
regular bail in Crime No.I 47/2020 registered at Peth Police Station for
the offences punishable under section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2.
The case in brief is that the incident took place on 28.11.2019
around 1.30 p.m., the applicant, who is well acquainted with the victim
told her to reach Malran. She went there to meet the applicant. He
expressed his love for her but she refused his proposal. On this, he held
her hand and took her towards Karvandi tree in the Shivar of village –
Savarna and forcefully established physical relations with her. After the
act, he threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody, else he would
kill her parents.
He continued to have physical relations with her on
several occasions under threats. Out of the said physical relations, she
conceived. On 4.6.2020, she discovered her pregnancy. She informed the
applicant on the same day and insisted him for marriage. But he refused
to perform marriage with her. On 31.07.2020, he took the victim to
Government Hospital for abortion. But the concerned Doctor refused as
her pregnancy reached the stage where abortion was not permissible in
2
normal course. Left with no option, she lodged report in the police station
on 9.9.2020. Based on her statement, the crime was registered against the
applicant/accused. The applicant/accused was arrested on 22.09.2020
and since then he is in custody.
3.
The learned counsel Mr. S.J. Deshpande appearing for the
applicant/accused has argued that the applicant is falsely implicated in the
case. There was a love affair between them. The applicant never applied
force on her. It was consensual sex. The victim is major. He has filed all
love letters on record written by the victim. He further says that it is the
victim and her family members who refused to perform marriage with the
applicant.
So the applicant has performed marriage with another girl.
Even the victim was present in his marriage. She did not raise any
objection at that time. The story put up by the victim is totally false and
concocted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. His custodial
interrogation is already over. The learned counsel further says that on
16.08.2020 even the
Panchayat meeting was called in the Village at
Maruti Mandir, Savarna. In the said meeting, the parents of the victim,
Upsarpancha and other respected members were present. The victim was
given understanding to part with the applicant but she was not ready to
listen. On the contrary, she demanded Rs.5 lacs from the applicant.
Unfortunately, he could not fulfill the said demand. She then threatened
him to falsely implicate in the case.
The investigation is completed and
the chargesheet is filed in the Court. He is ready to abide by all the terms
& conditions imposed by this Court.
Hence, he prays to allow the
application.
He has relied on the authority of Shubham Bhagwanrao
Ganvir Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 – ALL MR (Cri)
1869. The learned counsel says that the victim is major and the act was
consensual. Hence, section 376 of IPC is not attracted.
3
4.
The Investigating Officer has filed his reply at Exh.5 and
strongly opposed the application stating that the applicant has forcefully
established physical relationship with the victim as a result she got
conceived. When she came to know about her pregnancy, she informed
the applicant. He refused to marry her.
He denied the paternity of the
child. The victim did not disclose the said fact as the applicant/accused
threatened her. The applicant has married with another girl despite
knowing the fact that he is the father of the child to be born to the victim.
There is a chances of his fleeing away. Hence, I.O. prays for rejection of
the application.
The learned APP Smt. Bhide has argued that applicant had
physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of performing marriage
with her. Later he refused. She further says that even though charge
sheet filed, it does not give fresh ground to the applicant to submit an
application for bail. Hence, she prayed for rejection of the application.
5.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, it
appears that the applicant has not disputed his relationship with the victim
though he has denied the paternity of the child. The chargesheet reveals
that he had physical relationship with the victim on the assurance of
marriage. Though victim is major and had surrendered to the desires of
the applicant but she was under the impression that applicant would
perform marriage with her.
Prima facie ingredients of cheating is
appearing. Hence considering the seriousness of the offence, collection of
evidence and prescribed punishment thereof, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant/accused at this stage. Accordingly, the application
is hereby rejected.
Sandhya
Sunil Nair
Date : 27.11.2020.
Digitally signed by
Sandhya Sunil Nair
Date: 2020.11.30
11:23:08 +0530
( Smt. S.S. Nair )
Addl. Sessions Judge 2 Nashik.