[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2343 OF 2008 Vijay Maruti Deshekar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 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.I-32 of 2008 of Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ambernath, Dist.Thane. The said case is mainly under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. 3. The age of the prosecutrix was 17 and half years at the time of incident. She has stated that [-2-] she knew one Rahul. On 2.6.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. she was with her cousin sister Priyanka. At that time, they met Rahul. Rahul informed them that he would drop them home and made them sit in autorickshaw. However, he took the said autorickshaw to one lodge. Applicant is the owner of the said lodge. There Rahul committed rape on prosecutrix. 4. The learned APP has stated that though the applicant saw Rahul forcibly taking the prosecutrix into the lodge and father of prosecutrix made enquiry with the applicant, the applicant informed the father of the prosecutrix that Rahul and his daughter have left the lodge, even though they had not left the lodge at that time. 5. Looking to the material on record, it appears that it was a case of a consent. When prosecutrix and her cousin were travelling in the autorickshaw, according to the prosecutrix, she realised that rickshaw was going in a different direction, hence, she questioned the autorickshaw driver. Thereupon the autorickshaw driver told her that he had been instructed to follow Rahul, hence, he was following [-3-] Rahul. On the way, they met a relation of Rahul. Thereafter at the lodge, Rahul met his uncle and there was some discussion between them. The distance from where the prosecutrix sat in the autorickshaw and the lodge is about 20 kms. If the prosecutrix was taken away against her will, she would have shouted for help or she would have made an attempt to run away. However, no such act has been done by the prosecutrix. Even though the rickshaw had stopped on two occasions, the prosecutrix did not try to run away. In fact, the prosecutrix was accompanied by her cousin sister. The cousin sister stated that she should be left from where she was picked up and on request of her cousin, she was left at the said place. The further case of the prosecutrix is that in the morning when she came out of the room in the lodge, at that time, father, brother and uncle of Rahul were standing there. They made enquiries with the prosecutrix as to who is her father. The father of Rahul talked to father of prosecutrix on the mobile phone and thereafter the father of Rahul dropped the prosecutrix to her house. Looking to the material on record, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. [-4-] 6. The applicant-Vijay Maruti Deshekar to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant to report to Shivaji Nagar police station, Ambernath once in a fortnight till the conclusion of the trial. 7. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]