CNR MHNS010045532020 Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1672/2020.
{ Majhar @ Majar Yusuf Shaikh Baghwan Vs. State }
This is an application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail pending trial.
2.Brief facts giving rise to this application can be narrated as follows.
The applicant came to be arrested on 22/11/2020 in Crime No. 560/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 376 (2)(n), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, section 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and section 3(2), 3(1), (W), (I), (II) of Schedule Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik on the accusation that from the year 2014 to 19/11/2020 the applicant/accused raped the victim by promising to marry though he was aware that the victim belongs to scheduled caste and thereby cheated her.
3.The applicant contends that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The victim is major and she knows verywell the consequence of physical relationship. The victim and the applicant/accused were in love affair. The applicant/accused is behind bar from the date of his arrest. Investigation is almost completed. Nothing is to be recovered or discovered from him.
Therefore, his further detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. He is having permanent place of abode and roots in the society. He is ready to furnish the surety to the satisfaction of this Court and also ready to abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court. On these lines, he has prayed for bail pending trial.
4.The respondent State filed its reply and interalia denied all the adverse allegations made by the applicant and reiterated prosecution case. There is primafacie sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. If the accused is released on bail, he may hamper or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. On these lines, respondent State has prayed for rejection of the bail petition. In spite of service of notice the victim did not appear before the court in order to resist the bail petition.
5.Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhosle appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr. Gaikwad. I have also perused the investigation papers made available by the Investigating Officer.
The recitals of FIR primafacie shows that the victim came into contact with the applicant/accused in the year 2013 when she was studying in 8th Standard. Lateron, both of them fell into love and there was physical relationship between the victima minor and applicant/accused from time to time as the applicant/accused promised her to marry.
6.I have also gone through the ratio laid down in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2014 DGLS (Bom) 2003 wherein Hon’ble High court observe that 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 realized that they are not compatible and sometimes love between the parties is lost and their relationship dries gradually, then earlier physical contacts cannot be said as rape.
7.In a case in hand the recital case of primafacie shows that in the year 2014 when for the first time there was physical relationship between the victim and applicant/accused at that time she was minor and thereafter they maintained their physical relationship. Further, even after his marriage also the applicant/accused forced the victim to keep the physical relationship with him by threatening her on the basis of some photographs and videos. Therefore, in my humble opinion the ratio laid down the above cited case will not come to the help of the applicant/accused.
Further the Investigating papers primafacie show the active participation of applicant in this crime. The allegations against the applicant are well founded. The scope of investigation appears to be very wide. In order to carry out proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary. The investigation is in progress. If the applicant is released on bail, there will be hurdle in further investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of accusations, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not made out the case for grant of bail. With this, I proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
Application stands rejected.
( Smt. S.C. Jadhav ) 10th, December, 2020. Additional Sessions Judge 8, Nashik.