1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 238 of 2008 Bhiraj Mulji Gohil .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Pradip Rajput i/b Smt.Anjali Patil for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 18th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 12th September 2007 and is in custody since then in connection with an offence initially registered u/s.363 of the IPC. Subsequently, offence u/s.376 of the IPC was also registered. 2 3. Perusal of the statement of the victim Priyanka recorded on 12th September 2007 shows that she had voluntarily left the house of her parents and went to live with the complainant. In her subsequent statement dated 24th September 2007 she has stated that she married the applicant in a Ram Mandir at Navsari. Learned APP submitted that Priyanka, at the relevant time was minor aged less than 15 years and therefore offence u/s.376 is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant disputes the age of Priyanka. What was the age of the applicant on the date of the alleged offence would be required to be decided at trial. Prima facie, it appears that the intercourse was consentual and Priyanka claims to have married the applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail. 4. The previous application made by the applicant for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 1st October 2007 on the ground that the investigation was incomplete. Investigation has since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Hence the ground on which bail was rejected by the Sessions Court does not exist. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and also the fact that the investigation has been completed, applicant 3 is entitled to bail. Accordingly, I pass the following order:- O R D E R . The applicant be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties for the aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- subject to the condition that the applicant shall not make any inducements or threats to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not change his present place of residence without prior intimation to the police. (D.G. KARNIK, J)