..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.465 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1330 OF 2007 Sachin Mukund Chandane. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Ms.Anjali Patil, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. DATED : 2nd May, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-orig.accused has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 ad 376 IPC. The maximum sentence imposed on the applicant under Section 376 IPC is for the period of four years. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was on bail during ..(2).. the trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to them. This statement has not been controverted by the prosecution. 4. She has further submitted that it is clearly a case of consent. The prosecutrix ran away with the accused on her own accord. From the evidence on record, I find much merit in this submission. It is seen that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused to the office of the Sub-Registrar to get the agreement of marriage registered. Thus, it does seen that the prosecutrix has joined the accused voluntarily of her own desire. Thereafter the prosecutrix has accompanied the accused to Shirdi and thereafter to Musalgaon. If the prosecutrix has been raped, as is the prosecution case, the prosecutrix who is resident of Mumbai would not have gone to Shirdi with the accused and thereafter accompanied him to Musalgaon. On the other hand she would have attempted to run away or tried to get the help of some police men or some other person. There is no material to show that any such attempt was made by the prosecutrix. Thus, it appears to be a case of consent. ..(3).. 5. It is true that the prosecutrix was almost 14 years of age. However looking to the above facts and the evidence on record and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.Varadrajan Vs. S.Varadrajan Vs. S.Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras State of Madras State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 AIR 1965 SC 942 AIR 1965 SC 942, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Applicant- Sachin Mukund Chandane be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) each, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to Chembur Police Station once in a month i.e. on the first Monday of every month, till disposal of the appeal. 7. Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)