1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4429 OF 2009 Bhausaheb S/o.Motiram Gonde, Age-23 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Chinchoti, Tq.Wadwani, Dist. Beed, At Present : R/o.Dharur, Tq.Dharur, Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Dharur, Dist. Beed RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.96/2009 registered in Dharur Police Station of Dist. Beed for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366(C), 376(1) of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. It appears that the present offence came to be registered on the complaint of prosecutrix Anita Shivaji Pawar whose age is mentioned as 17 years in the complaint, and it is mentioned that she was abducted from her house under the pretext of marriage by the present applicant and was initially taken to Kej, from where taken to Parali, from where taken to Parbhani, then to Pune, from where to Beed, and when the ST stopped at Beed, on suspicion, police apprehended them and given in the custody of conductor of the bus, and then on 10/11/2009, the said complaint came to be lodged. 4. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with this offence on 10/11/2009 and since then is in custody. Considering the medical papers, they do not show any marks of resistance or violence on the person of the victim. Apart from it, during the period 07/11/2009 till 10/11/2009, the prosecutrix and the applicant travelled in the public vehicle at various places, but during that period, no complaint at the hands of prosecutrix is made. Even prosecutrix and applicant were apprehended by police and only thereafter the prosecutrix lodged the present complaint. It is to be noted that father of the prosecutrix is residing in the same village and she accompanied the applicant when applicant told her that she is called by her father, but without verifying the fact, she accompanied the applicant. Reliance is placed on para no.4 of the rulling, reported in 2004 All M.R. (Cri.) 1, in the matter of Sayyed M.Sayyed versus state. The facts of the present case are identical with the facts of the cited judgment. Considering the nature of the 3 evidence collected, it appears that there shall be some affair between the applicant and prosecutrix, and if it is so, there are no chances of tampering of any evidence till collected by the Investigation Officer. Case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant to give attendance twice a month in Dharur Police Station till filing of the charge sheet. Applicant may apply for relaxation of this condition after the charge sheet is filed. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.4429-09