1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1596 of 2010 Nitin Shrihari Jengathe ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Jaravandi, Tah. Etapalli, Dist. Gadchiroli. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Rizwy, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 26 th Octo ber , 2010 . Heard. By this application the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 06/2009, registered with Police Station, Jaravandi, Tah. Etapalli, Dist. Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 of Indian Penal Code. The offence came to be registered on the report lodged by the victim/prosecutrix namely Ku. Vaishali Chirkuta Gurnule, alleging therein that on the promise of marriage, the applicant sexually exploited her, which resulted into the pregnancy. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even accepting the case of the prosecution as it is, the applicant deserves to be released on bail in view of the judgments of Apex Court as well as the judgments of this Court. Learned APP has filed reply and opposed the application. Learned APP has also produced record before the court for perusal. Perusal of the record show that apart from the complaint, there are two statements recorded by investigating agency, wherein the witnesses state that the mother of the applicant offered an 2 amount of Rs.2000/- asking the victim/prosecutrix to terminate the pregnancy. There is also a statement of one Ku. Vasanti, in which she stated that on one occasion, the applicant came to the washing place, where the victim and she was washing the clothes. The applicant forcibly dragged the victim away from there and gave threat to the witness. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was ready to marry with the victim. Whereas, the record show otherwise. There is one statement of one witness namely Dayaram recorded by the investigating agency, in which the witness has specifically stated that when the matter came before the Tanta Mukti Samiti of the village and the grievance was raised by the victim before said Samiti, the applicant was present there. But, the applicant flatly denied any relationship with the victim. Learned Advocate for the applicant has invited my attention to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Uday .vs. State of Karnataka (2003 All M.R. (Cri.) 975 (S.C.), which is referred in the other judgments of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kaniram Rathod .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 2673, in the case of Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 2124 and in the case of Anil @ Bowa Aashanna Nannewar .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 All M.R. (Cri.) 15. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uday .vs. State of Karnataka, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even accepting the facts of the case as it is, the case would be not of committing rape and as such, he prayed for releasing the applicant on bail. It is well settled position of the law that the consideration differ while considering the matter at the stage of 3 deciding the appeal and at the stage of considering the application for bail. Even in the case of Uday .vs. State of Karnataka, the facts were that the prosecutrix was well aware that there may be hurdle in the marriage of accused/appellant and prosecutrix in view of their different social status and the caste barrier and even then the victim subjected herself to the sexual advances of the applicant/accused therein. In the present case, in the report it is specifically stated that an assurance was given by the applicant to perform the marriage and on the assurance given by the applicant, the victim subjected herself to the sexual advances of the applicant. Learned APP submitted that the offence is serious in nature. Learned APP also expressed an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may not be available for further investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant had approached the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli for grant bail. However, learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application. Learned APP submitted that there is no change in the circumstances. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. In view of the record available with the investigating agency and in view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material against the applicant to connect him with the said crime. Hence, this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale