1 CA4709/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4709 OF 2011 Mahadeo Maruti Dhawale Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Shri D.R. Korde, APP for the respondent / State Shri N.B. Narwade, Advocate, Assist to APP CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 17th November, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The complainant by name Savitra had filed a private complaint leveling allegations against the present applicant for ravishing her under the pretext that he would arrange to procure a certificate from the Pune Mental Hospital that her husband is a person of unsound mind. On the said private complaint, order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed. Thereafter, a detailed first information report came to be recorded. In the F.I.R., there is a specific mention that the applicant managed to have taken snaps concerning sexual act with the victim- complainant and she was put under pressure by telling her that if she makes complaint about this, those snaps would be used against her. 2 CA4709/11 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that she had already procured a certificate issued by the Mental Hospital dated 10th January, 2011, by which it is certified that Ramesh (husband of the complainant) was afflicted with “substance induced psychosis’. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the story of the complainant that she needed a certificate, and that is how, she contacted the present applicant, is belied by the fact that the complainant had certificate dated 10th January, 2011, wherein it is certified that her husband was suffering from “substance induced psychosis”. He pointed out that the said certificate dated 10th January, 2011 was filed in the Civil Court, wherein prayer for divorce was made. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the complaint filed by the lady is false and is purely to falsely implicate the present applicant. 4. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicant. The certificate dated 10th January, 2011 can by no stretch of imagination, be equated with the certificate by which the Doctor has declared Ramesh (husband of the complainant) as a person of unsound mind. The complainant has put her personal life to stake by filing complaint, and on her examination it became known to the police that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by a person other than husband. The argument by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the present complaint was filed in order to give a reply to the earlier incident which had taken place, cannot be accepted. In substance, the complaint if read directly, involves the present applicant in overt acts by which he had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her free consent. Not only that, he managed to take her photographs and retained them with him to use it 3 CA4709/11 against her at appropriate time. All the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature, and as such, the further custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required. The police will have to seize the Camera installed in the mobile instrument wherefrom the photographs have been taken and if positive prints are taken, they will have to be seized. In view of above, anticipatory bail application stands rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/ca/4709/11/17/11/11