1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3697 OF 2009 Govinda Madhukar Kamble & Ano. Vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. M.Mardhikar Adv for applicant. Smt. T. D. Khade APP for State. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 22 nd DECEMBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the applicant and the respondent. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. The accused apprehends arrest on account of a report lodged by one Vaishali Kharat. It is alleged that she was married to one Parmeshwar Kharat on 23.04.2009. Thereafter she went to her parents house. She lived there for 7-8 days. On 15.05.2009 her father-in-law came to take her back to her husband’s house. On their way they halted at Malegaon and were sitting in an autorikshaw. It is alleged that present 2 applicant along with Narayan Deshmukh came there on motor cycle. Dragged her from autorikshaw, made her sit on the motorcycle and took her away to Chikhali and then to Aurangabad. It is alleged that she was detained at Aurangabad in a house where she was subjected to sexual intercourse and her ornaments were removed. While she was living at Aurangabad she was in custody of the accused for one and half months. She however lodged report with the police about her being kidnapping and subjected to intercourse on 10.11.2009. She belongs to Schedule Caste and offence under Section 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Accused apprehends arrest. 3. Learned Judge of the Court of Sessions rejected the application only on the ground that no anticipatory bail can be granted when an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered. 4. The alleged incident of kidnapping had taken place on 15.05.2009. She was in custody of the applicant for 1 ½ months and later she was released. A report has been lodged in the month of November 2009. F. I. R. does not at all disclose any reason as to why 3 there has been a delay of more than 5 months in lodging the report to the police . Admittedly the complainant prosecutrix is more than 19 years of age. Reply filed by the State, particularly para 7 of the reply goes to show that the prosecutrix gave a statement before the police that she had gone voluntarily with accused person. But it is alleged that she did so at the instance of Narayan. Said thing is not at all disclosed in the F. I. R.. If such statement was given under duress. The same should have found in F. I. R. The fact that such a thing is not found in the F. I. R. clearly goes to show that it is an after thought. Since there is no explanation as to delay and there is nothing to suggest in the F. I. R. that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse being a woman of Schedule Caste, I do not think that there is any impediment in granting anticipatory bail to the accused. Reliance can be placed on decisions reported in Ashok Bapurao Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3464 as well as M/s Bombay Science & Research Education Institute Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2133. 5. In view of this accused applicant is certainly entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest accused/applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the 4 sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Accused may thereafter apply for regular bail before the Court and the Court may consider the case on its merits. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE svk 5 6 7