1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1998 OF 2010 Dipak S/o.Ashok More, Age-22 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Gudhe, Tal.Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, At Present Taklimiya, Tal.Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Rahuri Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENT Mr.R.R.Karpe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 15/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.81/2010, registered in Rahuri Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 376 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. 2 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on 12/03/2010 on the complaint of one Subhash Ghodeswar about the act of sexual harassment at the hands of present applicant with his daughter, who claims to be minor, in which the present applicant came to be arrested on 13/03/2010. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 10/05/2010 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Rahuri, hence now the applicant is before this Court for his release on bail. 4. On perusal of the facts disclosed in the complaint, as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the investigation, it appears that the incident was disclosed by the prosecutrix after she enjoyed her affair with the applicant for about 3 months. It is nobody’s case that after the first act alleged at the hands of applicant, she had complained to her father or to anybody. She had waited for 3 months and during this period, the relation between the applicant and prosecutrix were in progress. It is contended by the learned APP that considering the age of the victim, of 17 years, and even if she has consented, her consent can not be taken as free consent. For the observations in the matter of Sayed Malloomiyah Sayed versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 All MR (Cri.) 1, wherein in the matter of bail, it is observed by the Bench of this Court that when the applicant accused of molesting a minor girl of 16 years, her statement recorded by the police did not reflect that she was not a consenting party, applicant be released on bail. The facts of the case cited supra are identical about the statement of 3 prosecutrix and other witnesses in this application. In view of this, application needs to be allowed : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact the prosecution witnesses as well as not to leave the local jurisdiction of Rahuri Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar during the pendancy of trial against him without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned or the concerned criminal court. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1998-10