1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 106/2010 (VIJAY MOHAN RATHOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.A.Joshi, Advocate, for applicant. APP for Respondent State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2010. Heard. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 162/2009, reported at Manora Police Station, Distt. Washim, under Section 313, 376, 417 read further with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that he had married with the prosecutrix and for that purpose certificate was also issued by Shri Zolebaba Sansthan, Chikhali, Post-Kanzara, Tq. Manrulnath, Distt. Washim, after the marriage was celebrated between the present applicant and the prosecutrix on 14.02.2008. 3. It appears that the copy of alleged certificate relied upon also indicate that it was issued in consideration of deposit in the sum of Rs.325/- as donation. 2 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, other co-accused were granted bail by the regular Court while prayer by this applicant was rejected by learned additional Sessions Judge-1, Washim, by order dated 4.1.2010. 5. It appears that accusations made by the prosecutrix are serious. According to her, the applicant was visiting house of brother-in-law of the prosecutrix and developed relation with her and since then, since February 2008 started exploiting her sexually. She was also taken to Daman. She had conceived from the applicant and her pregnancy was forcibly terminated without her knowledge. She also alleged that applicant had promised to marry with her and he was already a married man before he entered into alleged wedlock with the prosecutrix. The accusations are that applicant in consideration of promise to marry with the prosecutrix sexually exploited her, refused to marry her and finally abandoned her. 6. Under these circumstances, learned APP strongly objected grant of bail on the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in order to investigate into serious accusations. It is further stated that the applicant is absconding and did not approach the Investigating Officer, nor could be traced. 7. Considering the serious nature of accusations, as also relevant provisions of law, particularly Section 375 'fourthly' of the IPC, as also Section 313 of the IPC 3 and Section 417 of the IPC, for which longer sentence of imprisonment are attracted, which needs to be investigated. If the anticipatory bail is granted in such cases, the investigation itself may get hampered. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. JUDGE Rvjalit.