1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2530/2009 (Arvind Mahadeorao Sarode vs. State of Maharashtra) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr P K Sathianathan Adv.for applicant Mr Anup Parihar, APP for Respondent -State CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 06 th August, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.120/2009 registered at Morshi Police Station, Dist. Amravati, for offence punishable under sections 376, 417, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the complainant lodged a concocted complaint against the applicant who is already married since 2006, having a son. It is alleged in the complaint which was made on 26th June 2009, since last three years the applicant had promised to marry her and, on that pretext established physical relations. The complainant herself was married and alleged that the applicant used to approach her husband informing him that the applicant cannot live without the complainant and promised that he will divorce his wife and instigated the complainant to establish physical relations saying that he may commit suicide if physical relations shall not be established. The complainant was instigated to give divorce to her husband and alleged that the applicant had promised to marry her by giving her Mangalsutra, alleging further that such relations as husband and wife between the complainant and applicant continued till 17.6.2009. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to the house of the applicant but she was driven away by his family members threatening her that if police report is lodged, she would be killed and abused. 2 According to learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant is serving as a Police Constable in Morshi Police Station and avers that he is innocent and that a false complaint has been made against him. 3. On 16th July, 2009 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail and it is reported that he has fully cooperated with the Investigating agency. He had undergone medical examination; his statement was also recorded by the police. According to the applicant, the complaint is false and on the basis of such accusation, chances of his conviction are remote. Reliance is placed upon the ruling in the case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2003 SC 1639 to argue that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a ‘misconception of fact’. For the reason, aforesaid, the conviction u/s 376 of the IPC was set aside in the said ruling. Another ruling cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant is in the case of Ashok Bapurao Thorat vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (2) Bom C.R.. (Cri) page 426, to contend that when complainant was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged sexual intercourse and she was a consenting party, anticipatory bail can be granted. Be that as it may, it would depend upon the material collected during the course of investigation and evidence that would be led. But considering the contentions made prima facie case for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail which was granted by this court on 16th July 2009, is made out Accordingly, interim bail is confirmed subject to same conditions. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly . JUDGE. sahare