1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [BA] No. 406 of 2011 (Nisha W/o. Sopan Khadishankar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.I. Jagirdar, Adv. h/f Mr. M. Badar, Adv. for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the State/respondent. CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 8 th AUGUST, 2011. Heard. The applicants have filed this application for directions to release them on bail against whom offence being Crime No. 31/2011 is registered at Police Station Shegaon, District Buldhana, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution case that a minor girl resident of village Karmoda, Tahsil Sangrampur, District Buldhana, was enticed away by applicants 1 & 2. After promising her that she would be married to a rich and handsome person, she was carried to Gujarat. Then her marriage was performed with applicant no. 3, at Jamnagar. The prosecutrix protested over this marriage. Therefore, the marriage was broken within two hours. Again, she was made to stay in Gujarat in the house of one Ramesh Pasotiya. 2 Thereafter, her marriage was performed with applicant no. 4. She stayed over night with applicant no.4. However, she expressed her desire to return to her native place Karmoda, District Buldhana. She could manage to have contact with the Police Station Khamgaon. Said Ramesh Pasotiya, knowing about her communication with the police, arranged for her journey by train from Jamnagar to Bhusawal. On arrival at Bhusawal on 31/03/2011, she lodged complaint. Perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix reveals that applicants 1 & 2 played major role in abducting her to Gujarat. After promising that her marriage would be performed with a rich and handsome husband, she was carried. Ultimately, it was found that applicants 1 & 2 took money from applicants 3 & 4 in consideration of marriage of the prosecutrix with them. The learned A.P.P., on instructions, states that charge has been already framed and the case is fixed for recording of evidence. The case of applicants 3 & 4 can be distinguished from that of applicants 1 & 2 for the reason that one Ramesh Pasotiya, his wife Sapna, one Lalabhai and his wife Kausalyabai, all residents of Gujarat, intervened in settling the marriage. Believing them, firstly applicant no.3 3 performed marriage with the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix protested, the marriage was broken and she was allowed to leave his place or by no means the applicant no. 3 tried to prevent the prosecutrix from leaving his house. Similar is the case with applicant no. 4. After marriage, the prosecutrix went to his house and stayed with him in the night. According to the prosecutrix, applicant no. 4 had sexual intercourse with her. This was natural in the sense that he had performed marriage with her. On the next morning, when she protested, she was allowed to leave his house. He also did not use any force or violence to prevent the prosecutrix from leaving his place. Even assuming, applicants 3 & 4 paid some amount to those, who intervened in the marriage, the fact remains that their intention was to marry and treat the prosecutrix as wife. The report of radiological examination regarding age of the prosecutrix, dated 18/04/2011, filed by the applicants, reveals that her age was more than 19 years. In that light of the matter, the application, so far as it relates to applicants 3 & 4, will have to be allowed. The application, so far as it relates to Nisha- applicant no. 1 and Meenabai-applicant no. 2, is rejected. The application, so far as it relates to Vanrajsing- applicant no. 3 and Mansukhbhai-applicant no.4, is allowed 4 and they are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Khamgaon. JUDGE *sdw