1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.495 of 2010 [Sanjay L. Bandi Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.R. Wagh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is named as accused in Crime No. 33/2010 registered with Police Station, Ballarshah, Distt. Chandrapur, for offence under Section 376 read with Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.R. Wagh for the applicant and learned APP Mr. D.B. Yengal for the respondent-State.. 4. Learned Adv., for the applicant has argued in favour of application, contending that 2 even accepting the contents of First Information Report to have some worth, no offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is made out. 5. To support his contention, learned Adv. for the applicant has placed reliance on reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 2003 SC 1639]. 6. Learned Adv. for the applicant has emphasized the point that on facts of the said case, openly and knowing fully well the consequences of the act in which the complainant was involved, an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code would not be made out, since it would not be a case of giving consent under misconception. 7. Perused the papers. 8. It is seen that the complainant has narrated in distinct words that the accused took her out of the house for moving around, and took her firstly to the friend's house and thereafter at many places, and at most of these places, lured her by a promise of marriage, and in spite of her resistance, made sexual intercourse. 9. At this stage, this Court is not sitting in scrutiny of truthfulness of the statement of the complainant. 3 10. On the other hand, at this stage, what is to be seen is whether the contents of complaint do adequately describe the ingredients of the offence. 11. This Curt is satisfied that there is adequate material on record to indict the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. 12. In this background, it is adequately demonstrated that prima facie the applicant is involved in commission of offence complained of. 13. In these premises, the applicant does not have a chance for grant of anticipatory bail. 14. Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge |Hedau| 4