( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3550 OF 2010 Ravi Rajendra Sonawane APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail. 2. The applicant allegedly kidnapped minor daughter of the complainant from lawful custody of her parents and thereafter, committed sexual intercourse with her, without her consent and by use of force. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers which are filed in the compendium of chargesheet. ( 2 ) 4. The prosecutrix appears to be aged about 16/17 years. The applicant was residing in the same house alongwith his mother as a tenant. It appears prima facie that the applicant and the prosecutrix developed intimacy with each other. It prima facie appears that both of them were attracted towards each other and were in the early years of the young age. The prosecutrix and the applicant may not have understood the implications of their acts but had left the house together on 17th February, 2010. It appears that she had gone with the applicant from place to place. It is alleged that she had taken away cash amount and the gold ornaments from house of her parents while leaving with the applicant. It further appears that for about a couple of months, they resided together. They moved from place to place and travelled to Mumbai, Pune and Surat. All along, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm nor sought help of anyone during the relevant period. No attempt was made for the rescue of herself. The conduct of the prosecutrix prima facie indicates that she had left house of her parents on her own accord. 5. The medical examination of the prosecutrix shows that hymen was ruptured, but that was ruptured much earlier. ( 3 ) The vagina admitted one finger easily and the prosecutrix was found to be accustomed to sexual intercourse. No external injury was found on her person. 6. The learned A.P.P. would submit that if the applicant is released on bail, then it is probable that the trial of the sessions case would be impaired because of his attempt to tamper with the evidence. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant will not reside at Jamkhed and will migrate to some other place during the period of trial. 7. Considering the peculiar fact situation obtained and the attending circumstances, the applicant appears to have taken away the prosecutrix on account of mutual love affair which had developed due to their intimacy and residence in the same house. In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/ (rupees twenty thousand), with one solvent surety bond, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on further condition that he will furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will not enter the limits of Jamkhed town ( 4 ) during period of pendency of the sessions case and will not contact any of the prosecution witnesses and particularly the prosecutrix and will not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. The undertaking shall be furnished simultaneously while furnishing the bail bonds. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3550-10