1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3804 OF 2009 Navnath S/o.Bhausaheb Gaike, Age-19 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Pokhardi, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. The applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.18/2009, registered in MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s.363, 366-A, 376 r/w. 34 of IPC with certain offences under the Atrocities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation as the charge sheet is already filed in connection with this case and thereafter the trial is committed to the Court of Sessions concerned, but yet to commence. 2 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, and the papers of investigation discloses that daughter of complainant by name Shila was eloped by the present applicant on 13/01/2009. She was returned on 22/01/2009 and thereafter complaint came to be lodged for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, it appears that on the very day, statement of prosecutrix Shila, the daughter of the complainant came to be recorded. At appears from the said statement that this victim prosecutrix was lured by one lady who was residing with applicant by name Pushpa. It further appears that as due to the introduction of this prosecutrix Shila with applicant under the pretest to marry, they left the said village and returned back on 22/01/2009. It appears that intimacy was developed between the said Shila and the applicant. 4. In the backdrop of this statement of the prosecutrix, only two points were urged across the bar at the time of submissions that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 02/10/1992, then on the date of said complaint, age of the prosecutrix is 16 years 4 months, then she is major so far as the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366-A is concerned. If the statement of the prosecutrix is considered as it is, then it can be inferred that she is consenting party and which fact can be inferred from the medical certificate about the physical examination of the prosecutrix as no marks of violence were found on her body at the time of her examination. 5. Application is opposed by learned APP on the ground that the 3 minor girl was abducted by the applicant. Considering the papers of investigation and particularly the statement of prosecutrix and the medical certificate after her physical examination on her return on 22/01/2009, it appears that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act of the applicant, then so far as offence registered vide CR No. 18/2009 to be termed as a technical offence. In the premise, as since 22/01/2009, the applicant is behind bar, charge sheet is already filed and the trial is committed to the Court of Sessions, there is no propriety of further detention of applicant behind bar. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the sum of like amount. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3804-09