{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3175 OF 2009 Ku.Sushma d/o Kisan Gaikwad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.D.Gitte, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent No.1 State Mr.V.V.Khabde, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, who is original complainant who has filed complaint against respondent No.2, has prayed to cancel the bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 in connection with CR No.94/2009 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga vide order dated 31.07.2009. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2, original accused in whose favour the bail is granted. Perused the complaint lodged by the present applicant. 3. It is not disputed that the applicant and respondent No.2 were serving in Government Medical Hospital as Nurse and {2} Ward Boy respectively. It is alleged that love affair between the applicant / complainant and respondent No.2/accused was going on for three years and thus he enjoyed sexual relations with her under the pretext to marry her. It is alleged that the relations were going on for three years prior to the lodging of the complaint, which is lodged in September 2009. It is further alleged that when the applicant inquired with respondent No.2 as to when he is going to marry with her, the respondent No.2 flatly refused to marry, which has resulted into lodging of the compliant for an offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that there was love affair between the applicant and accused and the act of sexual relations was by consent interse by the applicant and respondent No.2. If it is so, the accused was entitled to be released on bail. 5. Considering the observations in the impugned order I do not find any perversity or illegality in the same, which requires interference by this Court. In the premise, as no fault can be found with the impugned order, this application requesting for cancellation of bail, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3175-09