[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2070 OF 2008 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.15 OF 2008 Imran Yunnus Sayyad ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Aabad H.H.Ponda Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 25, 2008 DATE : JULY 25, 2008 DATE : JULY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.228 of 2007 of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Kalyan. The said case is mainly under Sections 376, 366 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecutrix is that she had a friend named Trupti. Trupti had love affair with Tarek. The present applicant was friend of Tarek. Hence, prosecutrix came in contact with the applicant. One day, the applicant told her that [-2-] they will go and meet one Didi and he took her to one bungalow. No one was present in the bungalow. However, the applicant told her that Didi would come within five minutes, till that time they would have some cold drink. The applicant brought two bottles of cold drink. The prosecutrix drank the cold drink. Thereafter, she lost her consciousness. When she regained consciousness, the applicant showed his mobile on which he had taken nude photographs of the prosecutrix. He threatened her that she should come whenever he calls her and wherever he calls her, otherwise he would defame her with the said nude photographs. On account of threat, the prosecutrix did not inform this fact to anyone and she used to go wherever the applicant used to tell her. Taking advantage of the photographs in his mobile, the applicant also had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the marriage of the prosecutrix was fixed with some other person. At that time, the applicant gave threats that he would show nude photographs to her future in-laws and he would not allow her to get married to that boy. The applicant showed the nude photographs to the future in-laws of the prosecutrix, hence, her [-3-] engagement was broken. 4. The applicant threatened the father of the prosecutrix that if he does not pay Rs.5 lakhs, he would show nude photographs of prosecutrix to the people on the internet. 5. On 3.10.2007 the applicant came to the house of prosecutrix. He forcibly took the prosecutrix with him and put her in a car. Though the prosecutrix shouted for help, due to fear, no one came forward to help her. The applicant threatened the prosecutrix that if she creates any more noise, he would distribute her nude photographs in the society. Hence, the prosecutrix got frightened and she kept quiet. Thereafter, a phone call was received by the applicant. After receiving the telephone call, he dropped the prosecutrix back to her house. 6. Mr.Ponda submitted that it is a case of love affair and he placed reliance on the further statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has stated that she used to call the applicant every day and she used to meet him at Juice Centre where they [-4-] used to spend 4 to 5 hours together. I have perused the said further statement. No doubt, the prosecutrix used to call the applicant every day but she has stated that she did so because she was threatened by the applicant. So also she used to meet the applicant at the juice centre and sat with him 4 to 5 hours and she had been threatened by the applicant that he would defame her. 7. Looking to the material on record, I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of applicant. The material on record shows an offence of a very serious nature, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Application is rejected. The learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order while deciding the trial. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]