( 1 ) cria4776.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4776 OF 2011 Chetan Mohanlal Sharma .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shailesh Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. Mr. B.R. Warma h/f. Mr. D.K. Rajput, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 07.12.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. On the last occasion this Court wanted the Investigation Agency to record statement of the victim girl by name, Yogita and note her response in regard to letter dated 30.05.2011. The investigating agency has confronted said victim girl with said letter dated 30.05.2011. She has seen said letter and rendered statement saying that said letter was obtained from her under force. I have perused ( 2 ) cria4776.11 said statement, as it forms part of investigation papers. 2. Present applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. 199 of 2011 registered with Amalner Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 376, 342, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. The victim girl filed the F.I.R. in the month of October, 2011, giving complete details as to how the applicant dealt with her right from 2009. Perusal of the same would go to show that said victim girl was put under pressure from time to time. It is seen that she submitted herself to the dictates of present applicant from time to time. 3. In the year 2009, the applicant misbehaved with her. In October, 2010, he had sexual intercourse with her and threatened her that if she makes grievance about it, he will see that her education is stopped and she would not be able to marry. ( 3 ) cria4776.11 4. According to the complainant – victim girl, the applicant represented to her that he would set up a house for her or he would arrange to get admission to her for B.Ed. course. The complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that she submitted herself as she was overwhelmed by the promises of the applicant. According to her, the applicant took advantage of the situation. 5. According to the complainant on 16.05.2011 the applicant purchased stamp-paper, put her name as Mrs. Yogita Pramod Desle, however, put a wrong address and compelled her to sign said agreement. She claims that thereafter she was compelled to undergo ceremony that of marriage at Om Sai Vaidik Vivah Seva Sanstha. Thereafter, she was detained in the house from time to time and she ultimately could manage to run out of said house on 16.08.2011. According to her, after 16th August, 2011, the applicant used to threaten her. It is only in the month of October, 2011 the F.I.R. has been filed. ( 4 ) cria4776.11 6. According to the applicant, he had filed a petition of restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of C.J.S.D., Amalner and that shows his bonafides and entire F.I.R. is false and has been filed only to harass him. Reliance was placed on letter dated 30.05.2011, by which police authorities were informed about said marriage. It is required to be noted that as of today the charge-sheet is not yet filed. The applicant has, no doubt, produced photographs in regard to ceremony which was undergone on 16.05.2011. 7. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the photographs themselves will show that the marriage ceremony was with free consent. He further submitted that the agreement was entered into on 16.05.2011 to provide security to the victim girl. He also submitted that filing of petition for restitution of conjugal rights was also to see that the matrimonial relationship ( 5 ) cria4776.11 between the applicant and the victim girl is established. According to him the F.I.R., which is filed, is patently false and that the applicant is entitled to bail. 8. Learned A.P.P. opposed this application and placed reliance on the text of the F.I.R. as well as additional statement dated 03.12.2011. According to him the text of the F.I.R. as well as said additional statement should be read as it is and if that is done the case is made out to hold that the present applicant compelled the victim girl to undergo marriage ceremony and compelled her to submit herself to the present applicant. According to him though the F.I.R. is filed in October, 2011, that by itself should not be a ground to discard her word in the said F.I.R. He submitted that the investigation is in progress and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Learned A.P.P. submitted that police will have to carry out further investigation without interference from the applicant. ( 6 ) cria4776.11 9. Having heard learned advocates on both sides and having perused the record which is discussed above, I am inclined to reject the application. If the marriage between the applicant and the victim girl was out of free consent from said victim girl, there was no place for agreement dated 30.05.2011. The couple which undergoes marriage voluntarily and without any force would not enter into document like dated 30.05.2011. The institution of proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to my mind appears to have been done by present applicant only to create record and to show that he wanted to maintain matrimonial relations with the victim girl. 10. The victim girl has narrated the incidents from 2009 and she has not filed any complaint against the applicant. She is a lady aged about 21-22 years. Undoubtedly, she would know the consequences of her act. ( 7 ) cria4776.11 At the same time, looking to the text of the F.I.R., it appears that she was forced to submit herself to the dictates of the present applicant and it is only when she realized that whatever was promised to her was not coming true, she filed the F.I.R. It was argued by learned advocate for the applicant that the filing of the F.I.R. in October, 2011 is to retort filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I do not agree with this submission. Filing of the F.I.R. in October, 2011 must be on account of subsequent conduct of applicant after the victim girl managed to run away from the clutches of present applicant. The text of the F.I.R. clearly shows that the victim girl was subjected to harassment and it is only when the things went beyond a particular level, she thought of filing of the F.I.R. In my view, with the aforesaid observations, I am inclined to observe that if the present applicant is granted bail, it would affect the investigation. The police will have to carry out ( 8 ) cria4776.11 detailed investigation about the manner in which victim girl was made to undergo marriage ceremony. Statements of persons who have acted as witness to agreement dated 30.05.2011 will have to be recorded. The investigation is pending and it will have to be carried out without interference from the applicant. 11. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant had relied upon judgment in the case of Sandeep s/o. Kaniram Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 All M.R. (Cri) 2673 to show as to how the Court should look to the material placed before the Court. In my view, said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as in the present case the Court is required to deal with the limited question whether the applicant should be released on bail or not. In my view, at the stage of disposal of the application for bail, the Court cannot decide whether the material before it is false or otherwise. The Court has to consider said material as it ( 9 ) cria4776.11 appears. In my view, this is not case where this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the applicant . In view of above, the application for bail will have to be rejected. Hence, following order is passed :- 12. The application for bail is rejected. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/DEC11/cria4776.11