1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1751 OF 2010 (Vishwas Manikrao Gaikwad .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.M. Bhagde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.144/2010 registered with the Police Station, Patur, District Akola. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the perusal of the complaint/report dated 27.09.2010 reveals that the complainant/prosecutrix alleges that the applicant has exploited her sexually on 24.04.2010. She further alleges that till 25.05.2010, she was subjected to sexual exploitation at the hands of the applicant by giving threats. It is further alleged by her that on 25.05.2010, the applicant made a phone call to her and asked her to come to Akola. The prosecutrix had been to Akola and thereafter the applicant and the prosecutrix went to Shegaon. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that even accepting the allegation as it is, it would show that the prosecutrix had not raised any grievance from 24.04.2010 to 25.05.2010, even though it is alleged that she was subjected to sexually exploitation. It also reveals that at her own she had proceeded to Akola. Learned Counsel further submits that the nature of the allegations clearly reveals the false case put up against the applicant in spite of having sufficient opportunity to the victim/prosecutrix, she had not raised any grievance nor made any complaint either to her husband or any other family members for a considerable long period and going to the various places such as Akola and Shegaon 2 at her own, create doubts in the genuineness of the complaint. Learned Counsel further submits that in view of the interim protection granted by this Court, the applicant has cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that it is not the case that anything is to be recovered at the instance of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and will also abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application by filing the reply. The apprehension is expressed in the reply that the investigation is under progress and if the applicant is granted protection, he may not be available with the investigating agency for further investigation. In view of the record placed before this Court, I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency can be taken care of by putting the applicant on certain conditions. It is also not in dispute that the major part of the investigation is over. The statements of the witnesses are recorded. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection is confirmed with the following conditions. (i) The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency and attend the Police Station, Patur, District Akola on every Sunday between 09:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, till the charge sheet is filed or for the period of two months whichever is less. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. (iii) The applicant to submit his residential address and his contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. (iv) In case the applicant is moving out of the area of Police 3 Station, Patur, District Akola he shall inform the Police Station about his visit to other place. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. JUDGE *rrg.