Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learnedcounsel for the intervenor and learned APP for the State.In these applications, the applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in crime No.261/2018 (FIR No.264/2018) for offencepunishable under sections 376, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Wakad police station,Pune.Taking undue advantage of social status of Nikita, it isclaimed that applicant under false promise of marriage andproviding financial support for further education, establishedphysical relations with her.The allegation is also that applicant ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 3 29) aba1787-18.docAmit has received an amount of Rs.40 lakhs from father ofcomplainant with an promise to pay it to her being her share inancestral property.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::So far as other two applicants, namely Avinash andYogesh are concerned, the allegations against them are restrictedonly to the extent of threatening the complainant Nikita, and toact in aid of the main accused Amit.Mundargi would then urge thatthe allegation of receipt of Rs.40 lakhs are not supported by anydocumentary evidence.He would then urge that the applicant isvery much available for investigation and as such, custodialinterrogation is not warranted.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::4 29)So far as the other applicants, namely Yogesh VishnuGaikwad in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 andAvinash Shripati Kamble in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1787of 2018 are concerned, according to them, the only allegations areof abetment.9. Learned APP has invited my attention to theinvestigation carried out till date and would submit that theconduct of the applicants as is narrated in the F.I.R., which can beinferred from the evidence collected during the course ofinvestigation, speaks of very character of the applicants.It isfurther pointed out that father-in-law of applicant Amit has soldthe ancestral property and handed him part of the consideration tobe paid to complainant which claim to have been misappropriatedby the applicant Amit.Same needs to be recovered from theapplicant Amit.As such, it is claimed that custodial interrogationof all the three applicants is warranted and pray for rejection oftheir applications.Having considered the submissions, what is noticed is,so far as applicants Yogesh Vishnu Gaikwad and Avinash ShripatiKamble are concerned, there are no justifiable reasons on record, ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 5 29) aba1787-18.docmuch less in the investigation papers, which warrant theircustodial interrogation particularly in absence of involvement incommission of offence punishable under section 376 of the IndianPenal Code.In view thereof, the applications of these applicants,namely Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 andAnticipatory Bail Application No.1787 of 2018 stand allowed onthe following conditions :-::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::i) In the event of arrest in Crime No.261/2018 (FIR No.264/2018) for offence punishable under sections 376, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Wakad police station, Pune, the applicants Yogesh Vishnu Gaikwad in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 and Avinash Shripati Kamble in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1787 of 2018, be released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount;ii) The applicants shall attend the Investigating officer as and when directed;iii) The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::The oral statement of the wife of the applicant and thestatement of father-in-law and that of complainant in voluminousterms justify the claim put forth by the complainant Nikita.The Anticipatory Bail Application No.1125 of 2018 ofthe applicant Amit Baban Kale is rejected.Mundargi, at this stage submits that this Court hadgranted ad-interim protection to the applicant on June 20, 2018which is operating till date.According to him, the same becontinued for a period of four weeks from today.This request is objected to by the learned APP andlearned counsel for the complainant.In the facts andcircumstances of the case, the protection is extended for a period ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 7 29) aba1787-18.docof two weeks from today.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::All the applications are disposed of in above terms.(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code