{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2229 OF 2010 Manoj s/o Dagduba Chaudhari Age-28 years, Occ-Service R/o Plot No.11, "Sonal" New Shreyanagar, Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.85/2010 registered with Jawahar Nagar police station, Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s 376, 313, 504, 506, 323, 507, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. It appears that the interim protection is granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 18th June 2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Harsha Pawar, aged about 26 years. It appears that the complainant and the applicant are acquainted with each other since last 10-12 years. it also appears that since 2007 love affair developed between them and somewhere in the year 2007, they got married as per Gandharva marriage. It further appears that thereafter, they had sexual relations. It is alleged in the complaint that thereafter abortion of the complainant was carried out in November 2008. Thereafter, it is alleged, the complainant left for Nashik for studies, where the applicant also joined her as he had got a job at Nashik. It is further alleged that for a substantial period the applicant and complainant stayed together and have sexual relations and suddenly in the month of February 2010, as the complainant learnt that the applicant has lost interest in her and intends to marry with another girl, this complaint has been filed. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar it is clear that the incident of sexual relation is not solitary incident alleged {3} against the applicant, however it was continued as long as the love affair subsisted. During the said period, it appears that there was no insistence on the part of the complainant to enforce the marital relations by marriage tie publicly. If it is so, the act alleged against the applicant cannot be termed as forceful one. Considering the overall effect and impact of the allegations it can be inferred that the act of the applicant can be said to be by consent. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail under the discretionary powers of this Court. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 18th June 2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station as and when summoned by the IO, on written requisition. The applicant is also directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2229-10