1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1218 of 2010 Virendra Dinkarrao Pilondre, aged 31 years, occupation  service, resident of Ambora, Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur. .... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.,P.S. Dhantoli, Nagpur. .... Respondent. ***** Mr. Anil Mardikar, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. ***** CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 12th August, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1. The applicant is apprehending arrest furtherance to Crime No. 208/2010 registered with Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur, for offence punishable under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes {Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act. Lateron Sections 493 and 496 of Indian Penal Code have been added. 2. Facts, in brief, are that:- [a] Complainant and the accused, both candidates of a Common Competitive Examination of Maharashtra Public Service Commission, began to study at a common place. Had mutual acquaintance, intimacy, and fell in love and sexual relationship, and it was continued from 2001 to 2009. [b] According to the complainant:- [i] The accused filled vermilon in the middle front of her forehead in the temple of Goddess, and declared that henceforth they are husband and wife and can live like a married couple, as she had, therefore, become his wife. [ii] They moved in society, and presented, lived like husband and wife. [iii] Complainant used to visit the place of brother of the accused, even cooked and served them food, like the bride of the accused. 3 [iv] Initially, accused continued to promise her to formally celebrate the marriage ceremony lateron, as they were not employed. [v] Though complainant got employment as Police Sub-Inspector, the accused told her that since he was still waiting for a job, they would celebrate the marriage function after he gets the job. [vi] After the accused got employment as a Sub-Inspector of Police, he disassociated from the complainant and married to another girl, assigning the reason that complainant belonged to Mahar caste and parents of the accused did not like this matrimonial proposal. 3. Heard both the sides, and perused the Case Diary and accompanying papers. 4. Application for bail is pressed on the ground that long-standing sexual relationship does not withstand the test of rape or forcible sexual intercourse, and in view of two reported Judgments of this Court in cases of [1] Sandeep Kaniram Rathod Vs. State of Mah. [Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1998; decided on 24th June, 2010], and [2] Anwar Khan Iqbal 4 Khan Vs. State of Mah. [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2124], it would not be a case of rape at all. 5. It is next argued that:- [a] The complainant being a legally trained person as a Police Sub-Inspector, she was bound to craft and draft First Information Report in such a fashion that all ingredients of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would get attracted, and no relationship of the nature claimed by the complainant existed. [b] The description of offence under said Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was, thus, artificial and, in fact, no offence was committed by the applicant. [c] In so far as subsequent addition of Sections 493 and 496 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, those are non-cognizable and cognizance cannot be taken by the police in absence of a direction from the Magistrate. [d] The applicant, therefore, claims that he is entitled for bail. 6. Upon reading of the report submitted by the 5 prosecutrix which was registered as First Information Report, it is clear that:- [a] The complainant and the accused lived as if a married couple, and according to complainant, accused even represented to all relatives that they are in love and going to marry shortly. [b] In view of vermilon put in by the accused in the forehead and hair of the prosecturix, the accused represented to the complainant that they were for all purposes a married couple and it was proper and legitimate for him to have sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. 7. Different witnesses, whose statements are recorded by the police, are coherent on the point that:- [a] Complainant and the accused lived together, or used to visit one another s place. Even some witnesses have stated that both lived like husband and wife. [b] The prosecutrix used to visit the house of brother of the accused during sickness and maternity of wife of brother of the accused, and her access, stay and movement in that house was as if wife of the accused. 8. In these premises, material on record collected by 6 the police inspires confidence in the proposition couched in the complaint that the accused was representing to the complainant that they were married, and formal celebration of marriage in presence of people would be performed lateron, and with the said deceitful representation, the complainant continued to have sexual relations with the prosecutrix and he broke the promise of marriage. 9. It is, thus, evident that though the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was not committed by the accused, other offences are prima facie made out against the accused-applicant. Due to addition of two Sections 493 and 496 of Indian Penal Code by the police, offence of cheating is also prima facie attracted, though not formally added so far. 10. In these premises, the applicant is not entitled to protection sought for. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. JUDGE -0-0-0-0- |hedau| 7