abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2008 Pradeep Dattatrya Kale .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.V.V. Purwant for the applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 7th October 2007 and is charged with an offence punishable under sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecutrix, the applicant had intercourse with her on 3rd October 2007 near a mango tree. He then told his friends Nilesh Shinde, Mahesh Shinde, Chintya Lokhande, Ganesh Bhange, Sachin Patil and Chetan Dhanavade to have intercourse with her and - 2 - they also had forcible intercourse with her. 3. FIR was lodged on 6th October 2007 by the prosecutrix. In the FIR, she stated that she knew the applicant for 2 years. She had met the applicant in the past on few occasions. The applicant once told her that he liked her. Once she accompanied him to visit a temple at Pandharpur. They had sexual intercourse at Pandharpur. She has further stated that thereafter she and the applicant had sexual intercourse on several occasions. The applicant was married to one Anna Patil on 25th May 2007. However, soon she separated from him. Thereafter, the applicant called her at Pandharpur on a promise to marry when the incident of rape as narrated above allegedly took place. 4. The prosecutrix had consensual intercourse with the applicant on several occasions in the past and even thereafter she had voluntarily gone with him at his invitation. It is difficult to prima facie accept the allegation of rape even before the trial. 5. Taking into consideration the nature of evidence and especially the fact of previous consensual sex which the prosecutrix had on several occasions in the past with the applicant and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in custody for more than - 3 - 4 months and the trial is not likely to commence soon, the applicant deserves to be granted conditional bail. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions. (a) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of every British calendar month. (b) The applicant shall not change his present residence without prior intimation to the concerned police station. (c) The applicant shall not make threats to the prosecutrix or make any attempt to contact her nor he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence. (d) Any breach of the aforesaid conditions would result in cancellation of bail. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)