[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3040 OF 2008 Shri.Jainul Mujjmin Hasan Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.V.V.Gangurde Advocate for Applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 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-137 of 2008 of Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, Dist.Thane. The said case is mainly under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. 3. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was admittedly over 16 years of age. In her statement, the prosecutrix has stated that she was in love with the applicant since a long time and she wanted [-2-] to marry the applicant. Even though, the prosecutrix knew that the applicant was married, despite knowing this fact, she wanted to marry the applicant and she used to tell the applicant that they should get married. On her insistence, the applicant and the prosecutrix got married. However, this fact was not disclosed by the prosecutrix to anyone. Thereafter, father of the prosecutrix was going to fix her marriage with some other boy, hence, prosecutrix told the applicant that they should run away. According to prosecutrix, she left the house of her father and she went with the applicant. Both of them stayed in a room taken on rent. There sexual intercourse took place between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Thereafter, they came to know that father of prosecutrix had lodged the complaint, hence, both of them came to the police station. There the applicant came to be taken into custody. At that time, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she did not want to go to her parents. 4. The prosecutrix has stated that she was in love with the applicant and she left the house of her father on her own accord. Looking to the fact that [-3-] the age of the prosecutrix was admittedly over 16 years at the time of the incident and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras S.Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras S.Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR AIR AIR 1965 SC 942 1965 SC 942 1965 SC 942 wherein it is observed that: ".. where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian." I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. [-4-] 5. The applicant-Jainul Mujjmin Hasan Shaikh be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.fifteen thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant to report to Central Police Station Ulhasnagar, once in a month till conclusion of the trial. 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]