1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2710 OF 2010 Vilas @ Babu S/o.Bhagwat Naikwade, Age-24 years, Occu-Business and Agriculturist, R/o.Kada, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.S.J.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 13/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.146/2008, registered in Ahsti Police Station of Dist. Beed. 2. On earlier occasion, the applicant was protected by way of interim relief on 15/07/2010. 3. It appears that on the adjourned date, inspite of service of notice, papers of investigation are not forwarded to learned APP, and when the communication to that effect was placed on record, notices 2 were issued to all the concerned officers including Investigation Officer, PI Ashti Police Station, and SP Beed. They have filed their affidavits in which they have tendered unconditional apology for not forwarding papers of investigation to the office of learned APP, and inconvenience caused to this Court. After going through the affidavits filed by the concerned PI, Ashti Police station, Additional S.P., Dist. Beed and S.P. Dist. Beed, in which certain reasons are recorded for non forwarding the papers of investigation. For the grounds stated therein, the explanation is accepted, not as a general rule, but as an exception. In an exceptional circumstances, as the 3 deponents of these 3 affidavits have tendered unconditional apology, it is accepted with a warning to them not to repeat such type of acts in future. As the apology is accepted alongwith explanation offered, notices issued against them stand discharged. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State and perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 5. It appears that this offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Dhananjay Kumbhar, father of the victim Shivkanya about the alleged incident which took place in the evening of 20/10/2008. It appears that initially missing complaint was lodged by the complainant about his daughter, as his daughter left the residence in the evening of 20/10/2008 to purchase certain grocery material and did not turn back. Later on the complainant came to know that the present applicant and his mother have abducted 3 victim Shivkanya under the pretext to marry applicant. This offence came to be registered on 24/10/2008. 6. Today, at the time of hearing of this application, it is contended across the bar that the applicant, and daughter of the complainant Shivkanya, who are neighbourers since childhood, are in love with each other. They belongs to different caste. Family members of applicant as well as Shivkanya were not happy with this relation. In view of this, both of them left Ashti in October 2008 and started residing at Aurangabad. Learned counsel for applicant has placed on record the affidavit filed by Shivkanya sworn on 02/07/2010 before this Court, in which she has stated that at her own, she left the house of her parents alongwith applicant. At that time, the age of Shivkanya was 16 years 6 months and they waited till she attains majority. During this period, nothing un-natural incident took place between applicant and Shivkanya. There are no allegations to that effect in the affidavit of Shivkanya. After her attaining age of 18 years, they got married with each other. It appears that the applicant and Shivkanya are enjoying happy married life. 7. Learned APP opposed this application on the ground that even though the victim is living happily with applicant, but at the time of incident in the month of October 2008, the victim was minor. 8. In this connection, observations of this bench in the matter of Yogesh Ramchandra versus State, reported in 2009(2) Bombay 4 C.R. (Cri.) 835, wherein it is observed in para no.4 that, “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, prima facie case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The prosecutrix admittedly was above 16 years of age and she had gone with the applicant willingly. The applicant is above 18 years of age as of today. She has no objection if the anticipatory bail is granted.” Here is the same case with prosecutrix as at the time of incident, Shivkanya was also of age about 16 years. 9. It is observed in the matter of Lata Singh versus State of U.P. And another, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, in para no.16, 17 and 18 as follows : Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court can not remain silent in matters to great public concern, such as the present one. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result 5 in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they can not give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits act of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of ‘honour’ killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their 6 own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothin but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism. There is dispute in between two families as the applicant and victim are belonging to different caste and only on that ground, there is oppose to the relationship of applicant and Shivkanya. Considering the observations of the Apex Court referred supra, the applicant and victim require to be protected from the police machinery. Considering this aspect, and particularly in the light of affidavit of Shivkanya, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence order- O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted on 15th July 2010 is hereby extended till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG 2010/cri.appl.2710-10