1 CrApln4401/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4401 OF 2011 Datta s/o Govindrao Bansode, Age 70 years, Occupation Social Worker, Resident of Pawai, Mumbai Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Respondents 2. The Superintendent of Police, Latur, District Latur Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for the respondents CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 9th November, 2011 PER COURT : 1. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 97 of 2011, registered with Udgir (Gramin) Police Station, District Latur, under Section 379 and allied offences of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 3. The F.I.R. rendered by the complainant lady indicates that for the first time in the year 2007, the applicant is alleged to have indulged in sexual intercourse against the wishes of the said complainant. In the F.I.R. itself it is quoted that the said complainant is pregnant for about eight 2 CrApln4401/2011 months, which would mean that she had intercourse with the present applicant, as alleged by her in November, 2010. According to the complainant, the first incident took place in the year 2007, but she did not file any complaint and the complaint is filed for the first time in July, 2011. The statements recorded by the police clearly indicate that the complainant was driven out of the house by her parents and thereafter certain premises on tenancy basis were arranged by the present applicant and the complainant stayed therein. 4. The conduct on the part of the complainant in occupying the premises, which are said to have been arranged by the present applicant, is clearly indicative of the fact that the complainant has no serious grievance against the present applicant. 5. The learned A.P.P. for the State contended that the allegations against the present applicant involve offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the statements recorded uptil now do not indicate that any specific amount was entrusted by the complainant to the applicant and the same has been misappropriated. 6. A perusal of the entire record as on today would go to show that the complainant was a consenting party for the alleged sexual intercourse. It is also not the case of the State that the applicant is absconding. If that is so, nothing prevented the State from arresting the applicant. In my view, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed to dispose of the present application. 3 CrApln4401/2011 ORDER A. In the event of arrest of the present applicant in connection with Crime No. 97 of 2011 of Udgir (Gramin) Police Station, District Latur, he be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. The applicant shall execute P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand). B. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station firstly on 19th November, 2011 between 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. for interrogation. He shall offer himself for interrogation whenever required. If the investigating agency wants to conduct D.N.A. test in order to decide the paternity of the child which is born to the complainant. The applicant shall co-operate himself with the investigating agency and render himself for such medical examination. If this is not done, it would be treated as ground against the applicant. In that case, it will be open to the State for apply for cancellation of order of anticipatory bail. C. In addition to above attendance, the applicant shall appear before the concerned police station on every second Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/criapln/4401/11/9/11/11 4 CrApln4401/2011