IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1381 of 2010 Roshan Murlidhar Anasane ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Rajapeth, Amravati. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. P.V.Navlani, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.R.Taywade, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 24 th September , 2010 . Heard. By the present application, the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 226/10, registered at Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati for the offence punishable under SEction376 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(12) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989. Perusal of First Information Report show that the allegations levelled against the applicant is that in the year 2006, the applicant developed intimacy with the prosecutrix namely Nayana and some time in the month of July, 2006, the applicant in one hotel established physical contact with the prosecutrix. It is further stated in the said report that on false promise of marriage, the applicant was exploiting the prosecutrix for satisfying his physical lust. The prosecutrix got married with one Mr. Mukesh in the year 2008 and she took divorce in the year 2008 and thereafter, she was residing with the applicant. He is further stated that the applicant again exploited the prosecutrix. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that bare perusal of the FIR shows that report is a result of an after thought because it is difficult to believe that that how the prosecutrix, who was subjected to exploitation in the year 2006 as per her own statement, would keep mum for more than 3 years. Learned Advocate has referred one agreement, which is placed on record at Annexure 1, styled as ‘divorce by mutual consent’. Learned Advocate submits that prosecutrix on her own maintained the relationship with the applicant by parting away with Mukesh Pardhi. Learned Advocate submits that taking into consideration all these facts, it is clear that the complaint is a result of an after thought. Learned APP for the resondent State has opposed the application. IN my opinion, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. There is no reason given in the complaint that inspite of exploitation as alleged by the prosecutrix in the year 2006 against her will and wish, no attempt was made by the prosecutrix to raise the grievance. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in like amount, on the following conditions. The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency and attend the police station, Rajapeth, Amravati as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. The applicant to submit his residential address and his contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. In case the applicant is moving out of the area of police station, Rajapeth, Amravati, 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. Hamdast permitted. Parties to act upon steno copy of the order. JUDGE Diwale