[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1752 OF 2008 1. Abbas Miyasaheb Peerjade 2. Najmunnisa Abbas Peerjade Both r/o Sahimannagar Majarewadi, Solapur ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Ujwal R.Agandsurve Advocate for Applicants Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for State Mr.Anand Wadigaonkar Adv.for Original Complainant ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned advocate for the complainant. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.88 of 2008 of Faujdar Chawadi Police Station Solapur. The said case is under Section 376 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that Bilal the son [-2-] of applicant no.1 and nephew of applicant no.2 had an affair with prosecutrix. At that time, prosecutrix was over 16 years of age. In the year 2003, Bilal told that he would marry her and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter also, Bilal continued to have sexual inter course with the prosecutrix. However, in the year 2008 when the prosecutrix came to know that Bilal would not marry her, she lodged complaint against Bilal and the present applicants. It is her case that the present applicants instigated Bilal to have sexual inter course with her. 4. It is seen that after the first incident of rape which occurred on 1.6.2003, the prosecutrix was moving around with Bilal and she accompanied him to various places like Hyderabad. In Hyderabad, the prosecutrix stayed with her maternal aunt. It is her case that at Hyderabad also, Bilal had sexual inter course with her. If the sexual intercourse was against her will, she would have shouted for help and as she was in her own aunt’s house, she would have got help. However, she has tried to seek any help. This shows consent on her [-3-] part. So also, looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix in accompanying Bilal to various places, it clearly appears to be a case of consent and the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the applicants because thereafter Bilal did not marry her. Applicant no.1 is 62 years of age and applicant no.2 is 58 years of age and she is a lady. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. In the event of arrest, each of the applicants i.e. applicant no.1 Abbas Miyasaheb Peerjade and applicant no.2 Najmunnisa Abbas Peerjade be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand only) each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicants shall not enter Solapur city till conclusion of the trial. If it is found that the applicants have entered into Solapur city and they have directly threatened the prosecutrix, it would be open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the applicants. 6. Application disposed of. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]