1 Cri-A-1610-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1610 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) Vs. Dr. Jaywant Shivram Jagtap ... Respondent (Orig. accused) Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the applicant - State. Mr.M.A.Patil,Advocate for the respondent/accused. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 19th January, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP and the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused. 2. The State has filed this application for cancellatin of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in Crime No.229/2009 registered at Gangapur Police Station, District Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 3. Prosecution case,in brief, is that sometime in 2001, the accused/respondent had approached Shantisadan Mahila Sudargruh at Ulhasnagar where the complainant Jayshree Patil was living. The respondent wanted a maid 2 Cri-A-1610-10.sxw servant because his wife was unable to look after the household work due to delivery. Accordingly, the complainant began to work at the house of the respondent. It appears that the respondent assured to keep the complainant as his wife throughout the life and having won the confidence, they began sexual relationship. It continued for number of years. In July,2009, the complainant found that she had become pregnant, but the accused refused to give his name as father to the child. The prosecutrix is said to be aged about 34 years. Thus, it appears that for about 7 - 8 years, she was living as a keep of the respondent. The impugned order reveals that according to the respondent, the prosecutrix was found committing some theft while working in the house and, therefore, the wife of the respondent had scolded her. Due to this, she had filed a false complaint of rape against the respondent. Whether there is any substance in that allegation or not is immaterial. At this stage, it is clear that the prosecutrix had willingly established sexual relationship with the respondent and it continued for number of years before the report was lodged. Therefore, prima facie, it does not appear to be a case of rape. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. The Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)