1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2170 OF 2009 Ms. Jaya Shyamsunder Varshney ... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr .... Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Singh i/b Shailesh Kumar for the applicant. Mr. Narendra Dhanawade for respondent No.2. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed by the original complainant, seeking cancellation of the order of bail granted by the Sessions Court dated 17/04/2009. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.2 was arrested in connection with the offence punishable under sections 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and he had initially filed an application for bail before the Sessions Court under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and his application was rejected on 26/03/2009 and, thereafter, immediately another application was filed within seven days before the Sessions Court and the said application was allowed and he was released on bail. It is further submitted 2 that after the applicant was released on bail, he has been threatening the prosecutrix and has been asking her to withdraw the complaint. It is further submitted that father of the applicant is a constable and taking advantage of this fact, all members of the applicant’s family are being threatened by the applicant. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has denied the aforesaid facts and has stated that when the first threat was allegedly given to the applicant, respondent No.2 was in jail. It is further submitted that the second threat, as alleged, was given at about 2.30 p.m. in the night which also is improbable. It is, therefore, submitted that false complaints have been lodged by the applicant. It is further submitted that there was change in the circumstance after the first application for bail was rejected by the Court and after the order was passed, the matter had been committed to the Sessions Court and, therefore, after committal, the second application for bail was filed and it was allowed by the Sessions Court. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail and, therefore, this Court ought not to interfere with the said order granting bail. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, in my view, no case is made out for cancellation of bail. Applicant and respondent No.2 3 were having love affair and for about 3 to 4 months they had sexual relations with each other. It is alleged that consent was given on account of promise given by respondent No.2 to marry the prosecutrix. In my view, the Sessions Court was justified in granting bail on the basis of aforesaid facts. However, it is alleged that respondent No.2 is threatening the applicant taking advantage of his father’s position. It is therefore necessary to impose certain conditions on respondent No.2. 5. Respondent No.2 shall not enter City of Mumbai during pendency of trial. He shall be permitted to attend the Sessions Court on each and every date of the trial. Respondent No.2 shall give his new address to the Investigating Officer and shall report to nearest Police Station from his new residence in Thane twice in a month. He shall not threaten the applicant or any of her relatives. If any complaint is received by the Investigating Officer, liberty is granted to him to apply for cancellation of bail. 6. Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)