1
ORDER BELOW EXH.1 IN CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 502/2022
CNR No.MHNS010019522022
Pravin Vasant Ahire V/s. State.
Heard:
1.
Ld.Adv. Mr. R. J. Kasliwal for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangale for the State.
I. O. present.
Perused the say of the victim.
This is an application under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code in Crime No. 169/2022 registered at Police Station,
Ambad, Nashik for the offence under Section 376(1), (z),(n), 417, 323,
504 & 506 of I. P. C. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the
accused/applicant committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the
false promise of marriage.
2.
Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
and the socalled victim were in a consensual relationship. Even as per
the FIR, the victim is 32 years old. Accused is 46 years old. Both of them
are married. There is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the
applicant. No recovery needs to be made from him. Applicant has
complied with the terms and conditions imposed by the Court while
granting interim relief.
2
3.
Cri.B.A. 502 of 2022
(Or.Exh.1)
Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
application on the ground that this is not the case of a loveaffair gone
awry, but, the main thing is that the applicant/accused had assaulted
the victim when she asked him to marry her. The victim has filed
photographs of the injuries on record. Moreover, the applicant is a
Government servant with few other cases against him including under
the ACB, Atrocities Act and also under Sec. 323 of the I.P.C.
4.
Primafacie, perusal of the documents and material on
record do indicate the theory of consensual relationship. However,
being in a consensual relationship does not entitle a man to physically
assault his partner. I have perused the photographs of the assault filed
by the victim. The Court can not brush aside incidents of physical
assault on women under the carpet. Certainly, custodial interrogation
about the same is required to be made with the accused. In view of the
foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the bail application.
ORDER
1)
2)
Application is hereby rejected.
Interim order dated 22/04/2022 passed below Exh.4 is
hereby vacated.
(Order dictated & pronounced in open court).
MRIDULA
BHATIA
06/05/2022
Nashik.
Digitally signed
by MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.05.06
18:28:59
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge2 and
Addl.Sessions Judge, Nashik