[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2452 OF 2008 Mr.Khurshid s/o Maqbool Siddiqui ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.A.M.Saraogi Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.V.Saste APP for the State Mr.Aabad H.H.Ponda Advocate for Complainant ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned advocate for the complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.175 of 2008 of Versova Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Section 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecutrix is 25 years of age. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she became acquainted with the applicant. Thereafter, both of them fell [-2-] in love and they had an affair. On account of the affair, they had sexual intercourse. The case of the prosecutrix is that applicant had promised to marry her. However, thereafter, the applicant refused to marry her. The further case of the prosecutrix is that on 25.6.2008, the applicant came to her house and committed rape on her. 4. The learned advocate for the prosecutrix stated that in fact she did not want to keep any contact with the applicant and the applicant was insisting that she should maintain relations with him. However, on perusal of the material on record including the statement of the prosecutrix to the Doctor, it is seen that the prosecutrix wanted to get married to the applicant. The case of the prosecutrix is that the applicant was not willing to do so. On 25.6.2008, the prosecutrix insisted that they should perform Court marriage, however, the applicant refused to do so. Thereafter, he had forcible sexual intercourse. 5. The FIR in relation to the incident was lodged on 28.6.2008. In the FIR itself, the prosecutrix has stated that on 27.6.2008 she went to the police [-3-] station along with her mother and she informed the police that she was assaulted by the applicant on 25.6.2008. Hence, the police told her to get herself treated in Cooper hospital. Thereafter, on 28.6.2008 the FIR came to be lodged wherein the prosecutrix has alleged that the applicant committed rape on her on 28.6.2008. From the FIR itself, it is seen that on 27.6.2008 when the prosecutrix first went to the police station, she did not tell the police officer that rape was committed on her but she only alleged that the applicant had assaulted her. If the prosecutrix had informed the police officer that rape was committed on her on 27.6.2008, the police would have immediately recorded her FIR and sent her with Yadi to the hospital for medical check-up to find out whether rape had been committed. The fact that this was not done, shows that on 27.6.2008 the prosecutrix had not told the police that rape was committed on her. Even today before the Court, it is not submitted that on 27.6.2008 when the prosecutrix went to the police station she informed the police officer that rape was committed on her and the officer did not register her FIR. It is seen that on the next day i.e. on 28.6.2008, the [-4-] prosecutrix again approached the police and informed them that rape had been committed on her. The prosecutrix is an educated lady. She is conducting business for which she is required to frequently go abroad. It is not as if the prosecutrix is some young, illiterate girl living in a rural area. The very fact that on 27.6.2008, no allegation of rape was made by the prosecutrix against the applicant before the police, shows that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. This seems to be a case wherein though there was love affair between the parties thereafter the relationship has soured and hence, this complaint came to be lodged by the prosecutrix against the applicant. 6. At this stage, it is submitted that the prosecutrix is receiving threats from the applicant and some copies of SMS messages sent by the applicant to the prosecutrix have been produced. As far as these SMS messages are concerned, it is seen that in none of messages, the applicant has given any threats or abuses to the prosecutrix. In fact, the messages show that the applicant still loves and cares for the prosecutrix despite the [-5-] fact that prosecutrix has falsely implicated him. As far as giving threats by the applicant to the prosecutrix is concerned, she states that the said threats were given in person. There is nothing to corroborate that such threats were given except bare word of the prosecutrix. However, the SMS on which the prosecutrix herself has placed reliance, shows that the applicant still loves and cares for her. As stated earlier, the FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix only because the relationship between the parties became bitter. Looking to the entire facts of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant-Khurshid Maqbool Siddiqui be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.thirty thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to Versova Police Station, Mumbai between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. for a period of fifteen days starting from 2.8.2008. Except for the purpose of attending the police station, the applicant shall not enter into jurisdiction of Versova police station for a period of three months from today. [-6-] 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]